Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Consumer Guarantees Bill

Order read for consideration of Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee).

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about the precedents for the recommittal of a Bill to a Committee of the whole House, which I understand we are about to do to reconsider clause 12, because of the failure to include a money resolution. Page 507 of "Erskine May" under the heading "Recommittal of Bill" states that you are entitled to accept a recommittal
(d) to enable the committee to consider in a regular manner a clause improperly agreed to before a money resolution had been passed".
That paragraph then refers back to page 495. I read through that page to find a precedent for the recommittal of a private Member's Bill, but could not find anything.
I am grateful to the staff of the Public Bill Office and the Journal Office who helped me with my considerable research. We found no precedents in the 21st edition of "Erskine May" for a recommittal. However, in the 20th edition—I am not sure whether you have a copy here, Mr. Speaker—on consideration of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] 1930, the Speaker called the attention of the House to the fact that, while considering a new clause, the Standing Committee had agreed to an amendment which authorised the payment of certain fines to the Exchequer, which it had no authority by way of money resolution to do. That is a precedent for what I think you will allow to be in order today. I have taken the precaution of bringing that Bill with me, and you will notice that it is not a private Member's Bill but a Government Bill.
I undertook further research and found another precedent for what will happen today in our consideration of the Mineral Workings Bill on 18 June 1951. I do not want to take up more time than necessary, but——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order? He is drawing my attention to precedents.

Mr. Leigh: My point is that I have established that there is no precedent for a private Member's Bill to be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House because of an error connected with a money resolution. Do you accept that there is no precedent and that we are setting a precedent today not to improve our procedures, but to right an error?

Mr. Speaker: It is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman drew my attention to page 507 of "Erskine

May" and I draw his to page 505. The answer is that there is no procedural obligation on the House to recommit the Bill to the Standing Committee that considered it. A Committee of the whole House is perfectly capable of regularising the position. The fact that this precise course may not have been followed before is irrelevant. I have selected this motion by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) who is in charge of the Bill. If hon. Members oppose it, they are free to speak against it.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have seen in this morning's newspapers that last night the farm price talks in Luxembourg broke down. That means that the farming industry will enter the 1990–91 farm price year not knowing what farm prices will be. Clearly, that is bad for the farmers and those——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What has it to do with the Consumers Guarantees Bill?

Mr. Marshall: Do you know, Mr. Speaker, whether a request has been made for a statement on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: We should proceed with the Bill.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the matter before us.
Unfortunately, I was travelling back from the other side of the globe last night in order to be here this morning. I got Hansard first thing this morning to see what transpired in respect of the money resolution last night, but that edition of Hansard only covered the business up to 10 pm. Before we consider the motion on the Order Paper, surely we should be told exactly what happened last night. Furthermore——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not here, but had he been he would know that the money resolution —[Interruption] Order. I am dealing with this. The money resolution was passed last night; if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Votes and Proceedings he will see that.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of clause 12.
The recommittal of the Bill became necessary when it transpired, after the Bill had been reported from Committee, that the provisions of clause 12, if passed into law, would involve the expenditure of such sums of public money as would need the authorisation of the House by a money resolution. The application by clause 12 of part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 would cost an estimated £1 million to enforce.
Clause 12 was considered in Committee without the authority of a money resolution. I must add that I hold no responsibility for that, and I have a letter from the Minister to confirm that. The motion for recommittal——

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr: Jones: No.
The motion standing in my name will allow us to correct the irregularity.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Member for Clwyd South-West (Mr. Jones), the promoter of the Bill, would not give way to me when I sought to make an obvious point—that two


kinds of legislation come before the House. The first is public, Government legislation which is led by Ministers and for which the Government are responsible. The second type of legislation is private Members' legislation for which an individual Member is responsible.
Today we find ourselves in a monstrous situation. I am not reassured by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West who seeks to exculpate himself from any responsibility when it has everything to do with him. He is the private Member who sought to put the Bill before the House. He is responsible. If he got it wrong, his advisers should have advised him better.
Who is responsible for this lash-up?

Mr. Bob Cryer: Not as bad a lash-up as the poll tax.

Mr Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman on whom I can rely to intervene on my speeches.
Are the Government responsible? The Government will be responsible for the legislation when it is implemented.

Mr. John Marshall: If it is implemented.

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend is correct.
I know that the Government have expressed satisfaction with some parts of the Bill. I remember the Sale of Goods Act 1893 well from my student days, when I learned about it in my studies to become a solicitor. I know that the Government believe that that Act could do with some revision and updating. Are the Government responsible for the conduct of the Bill? The answer must be no, because the promoter of a private Member's Bill leads by explaining why he believes it to be a good idea. The Minister intervenes during the debate, virtually by way of amicus curiae, to give the Government's view of the Bill.

Mr. Robin Squire: Surely in such circumstances Ministers usually listen and guide hon. Members on such matters. I hope that the Minister is listening now, as I am not sure that he may not be the villain. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) dismisses the role of the Minister, I am not so sure that the real responsibility does not lie on the Front Bench.

Mr. Viggers: I am concerned that the Government have some responsibility, because, if and when the legislation becomes law, it will be for the Government to implement it. Imagine the difficulty, however, if we had passed the Bill into law and then found it was defective. It would have been the Government's responsibility to administer the necessary changes. We cannot relieve the Minister and his advisers of some of the responsibility.

Dr. John Marek: When the Bill was in Committee, I implored the Minister many times to give us his advice, but he rarely did so. I do not want to make a lot out of this, as I want to get the Bill into the right state so that it can be passed, and I do not want to be accused of filibustering—I hope that that is not the aim of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). The hon. Gentleman must be advised that, so far, the Minister has not been extremely helpful.

Mr. Viggers: I was not discussing whether the Minister has been helpful or not, but whether the Minister is responsible for the legislation.

Mr. John Marshall: rose——

Mr. Viggers: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I shall not give way; I am anxious not to delay the House.
The Minister must accept some responsibility, and I would be interested to hear his thoughts on this matter. He must have rafts of advisers—I suspect, not too far away —who have followed the Bill with keen interest. One or more of them must feel some responsibility, and perhaps some shame, that we have reached this stage and require the special motion now before us. I am afraid to say that the Government have some responsibility.
The second responsible group are those close to your august Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I remember seeking to introduce various ten-minute Bills under Standing Order No. 37, as it then was. Then I sought the advice of the Clerks of the House. They helpfully told me that there was a back way round the normal requirement for a money resolution. I was able to put my Bill before the House by claiming that the money would come from the national insurance fund. That quirk was helpfully pointed out to me by the Clerks who can be helpful on such occasions.
How can it be that Homer has nodded in this case? How is it that the Clerks allowed the Bill to reach this stage without pointing out its defects? What were they doing? That we have been let down in this way is an effective breach of the privileges of the House. Previously, when someone was guilty of a breach of parliamentary privilege, he used to be called to the Bar of the House. He had to account for himself and stand at the Bar while his case was debated. I believe that, until the 19th century, the person accused of such a breach had to kneel at the Bar. In this case it might be appropriate for the Clerk of the House to kneel at the Bar.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Clerks give their advice to hon. Gentlemen in private. On reflection, I am sure that he will accept that public criticism of the Clerks is not seemly.

Mr. Viggers: I have sought to identify the second group to whom we should look for blame in this matter, but I intended to say that it is not the Clerks, whose services we all respect, who are primarily responsible. I have been in the House for 16 years and no body of people are more devoted to their duty and more skilful in guiding individual members than the Clerks.
The third party with responsibility is obviously the promoter of the Bill. We know that he has been advised by the National Consumer Council. Two days ago, it committed the extraordinary discourtesy of issuing a most abusive press release about me without the courtesy of sending me a copy. That press release was drawn to my attention during a television interview, when the interviewer produced it and asked me for comment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that the NCC is not in receipt of any public funds. It would be wrong if a body that behaved in such a way was in receipt of such funds.

Mr. John Marshall: I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister, who this morning has been described as unhelpful, is responsible for giving the National Consumer


Council £2 million of taxpayers' money. Is issuing press releases attacking Members of Parliament a sensible way of spending taxpayers' money?

Mr. Viggers: I am horrified to hear that it is £2 million of public money. We are discussing whether the House should waive its normal rules and allow a money resolution to be attached to a private Members' Bill, thereby allowing a further £1 million a year to be spent. We should not allow that to pass.
The House of Commons has a limited number of opportunities for Members to present private legislation. Many of us are unsuccessful in the ballot. It is disgraceful that an individual who was successful has put before the House a defective Bill, causing us to debate this issue on a Friday, when most hon. Members want to be in their constituencies. I oppose the motion.

Mr. Leigh: I, too, oppose the motion. As you may not have heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you had not quite come into the Chamber when I was raising my point of order, I have done some research on this matter. We are talking about setting a precedent, and I do not believe that we should set it. Its roots lie in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister on Second Reading on 26 January 1990, when he said:
The exchanges illustrate my earlier point: that the Standing Committee proceedings on a measure such as this —a long and complex measure for which Standing Committees on private Member's Bills are not entirely suited —would lead to even greater problems that might be very difficult to resolve. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle for having highlighted the point."—[Official Report, 26 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 1236.]
My hon. Friend was looking into a crystal ball and foretelling the kind of problems that might arise on the Bill. This highly complex measure, with a considerable number of clauses, is not an appropriate subject for Standing Committee proceedings. That is illustrated by the mess we are in.
Unlike some hon. Members, I was here until the Adjournment debate last night. I was sitting on the Bench where my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) now sits advising the Minister. I saw the Minister come into the Chamber like a dark creature of the night, a saturnine figure dragging his chains. I think that perhaps he lives hanging from the rafters. The House was almost deserted. Where was the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones)?

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to clarify a point. The motion that we are debating is that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. Surely the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) should restrict his remarks precisely to the motion. May I ask you, Sir, to call him back into order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will leave order to me; otherwise, we might get into a muddle on this very complicated day. I realise that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was on his preamble, but it would be helpful to the House to remind him that we are dealing with the recommittal of clause 12. Remarks should be directed to that matter, not to the whole Bill.

Mr. Leigh: I am simply speaking on a constitutional point. I do not believe that a precedent should be set. As you will know from your great experience in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, precedents are not set every day. We are not some little banana republic where one can do what one likes and change the rules simply because someone has made a cock-up—which is what has happened with the Bill. We change the rules because we want to improve procedures.
When I was carrying out my research for my point of order last night in the Public Bill Office and Journal Office, I was told that it was not entirely unusual for precedents to be set and that a precedent had been set recently to allow a guillotine on Lords amendments. That is a major issue, and it is central to what the Government want to do. Presumably, the Government persuaded Mr. Speaker that that action was in the interests of good government and legislation. This matter is entirely different.
It is extraordinary that no one spotted this problem before. I made the effort of looking at the Committee proceedings. I thought that there would have been considerable discussion on clause 12 and that these matters might have come up. I suppose that I should have been warned, because I was here at the start of the Second Reading debate, when the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West gave a cursory speech, lasting some 15 minutes, on this highly complex measure. I can only assume that, rather than wanting to inform the House on every clause, he galloped through his speech because he thought, wrongly, that other hon. Members would want to speak at some length. I spoke for only eight minutes, and the average length of speeches that day was 15 minutes.
If the House wishes, I can refer in more detail to the speech that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West made on Second Reading. I see no mention in it of clause 12 or any evidence that he had researched adequately as someone who had been given a unique opportunity with the No. 1 spot—something for which many of us have waited many years. As a result, we are faced on a Friday morning with having to set these matters right.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend has spent a lot of time researching the Committee and Second Reading debates. How much time did the Committee spend discussing clause 12? One would have thought that there would be lengthy discussion in Committee and that, this point would be raised then.

Mr. Leigh: Exactly. I thought that I would go through the Standing Committee debates and find out whether my hon. Friend the Minister had given advice, backed up by an entire team of civil servants. How many civil servants are sitting in the Box now? I can count no fewer than seven——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that it is not in order to refer to civil servants in the Box or in the Gallery.

Mr. Leigh: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Some blame must attach to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. There was only a cursory discussion of clause 12 in Standing Committee C on 14 February 1990. The hon. Gentleman moved amendment No. 82, the Chairman said that it would be convenient to take another amendment and, judging by the length of the Hansard reference, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West spoke


for no more than two minutes. That was the end of the consideration of clause 12. I am prepared to give way to him if he can convince me that there was more discussion. Unfortunately, I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee.
Was my hon. Friend the Minister a member of the Committee? Was he present on 14 February 1990? Why is his name not listed? Instead of doing his duty and warning the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West that a money resolution might be necessary—advised as my hon. Friend is by the weight of the civil service—I see no reference to his having intervened at that point. Why is there no evidence that the mind of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West was exercised on this point?
We may seem to be nit-picking, although I do not think that we are. This is an important point. The matter has been dealt with before. I need not go through all the points that I raised in my point of order, but they are of some relevance. Only twice in our parliamentary history have we had such a motion. For instance, the Road Traffic Bill was presented on 18 Februry 1930 by the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Herbert Morrison, but because it was a Government Bill and because of its content, it was entirely different from the measure that we are now discussing. Let me illustrate that by quoting the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Herbert Morrison—a man whom I have always admired—

Mr. John Marshall: Shame.

Mr. Leigh: I have always admired him.

Mr. Marshall: I am appalled that my hon. Friend should admire the late Herbert Morrison, who was the originator of many of the nasty council estates that disfigured London for so long. I am also appalled that he should recommend a course of action followed by a Government led by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. I should have thought that the fact that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was in favour of it would convince the promoter of the Bill that he should not be.

10 am

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that that is a long way away from the recommittal motion on clause 12.

Mr. Leigh: I want to illustrate my point by explaining that the Bill that Mr. Herbert Morrison introduced was entirely different in kind and in substance from this Bill —not only by reason of being a Government Bill but because of its size. Mr. Herbert Morrison said:
The Bill which we now introduce is a consolidating as well as an amending Bill.
I am not aware that the Consumer Guarantees Bill is a consolidation measure. Mr. Morrison continued:
There is, I am glad to say, in the last Schedule to the Bill, much existing legislation repealed."—[0fficial Report, 18 February 1930; Vol. 235. c. 1205.]
I am not aware that the Consumer Guarantees Bill repeals existing legislation.
This is a constitutional point, and precedent is most important, because we base all our procedures on it. But I found no precedent for this motion in connection with the Road Traffic Act 1930, so I sought inspiration from the

proceedings on another Bill—the Mineral Workings Bill 1950—in the hope that I might find a measure on all fours with today's motion. What I found was something quite different. The then Minister of Local Government and Planning, Mr. Dalton—another famous figure in Labour party history—said:
This Bill makes financial arrangements in connection with the announcement which I made on 4th July …and the Special Development Order".—[Official Report, 9 April 1951; Vol. 486, c. 664.]
In essence, what he said was that that Bill was about financial arrangements. In that respect it was entirely different from this Bill. The Mineral Workings Act 1951 was a major Government measure to repair damage that had been done to a number of sites because of mineral excavations. Mr. Dalton said that the places that he had visited resembled the "deserts of the moon".
I then decided to see whether, with the help of the Clerks, I could discover any further information on this matter. I am not privy to all the inner workings of the Whips' Office. I leave such matters to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who is sitting behind the Minister. I discovered an interesting letter from the Clerk, then Kenneth Bradshaw, to the then Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), on 17 January 1980. It said:
You raised with me at the Table earlier this week the question whether motions to recommit bills fell into the category of motions which could be moved without notice and therefore required special vigilance from your point of view.
I emphasise the word "vigilance". That is why I raised my point of order: this is a constitutional matter and we should be exercising vigilance.
The letter continues:
Since then, we have looked at every recommittal motion since 1945 to see when and in what circumstances this kind of motion has been offered without notice, and might therefore be so offered in future.
We must remember that this is a letter from a distinguished Clerk of the House. I make no criticism of the Clerks, who have always been most courteous and who have advised me in the most correct fashion.
The letter continues:
These bills are normally Government Bills, and written notice is invariably given of motions to recommit them".
I return to the point that I raised at the beginning of the debate. Was written notice given in this case? All we had in this case was the Minister slinking in at the dead of night to table the motion. A former distinguished Clerk of the House has told us, first, that motions are normally restricted to Government Bill, and, secondly, that written notice is given.
The letter continues:
It is true that at the end of the committee stage of the controversial House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill 1979"—
some of us remember how controversial that was; it was very different from the Bill that we are discussing today—
a motion to recommit the Bill a Committee of the whole House was accepted by the Chair and put to the vote. The circumstances were, however, unusual. The recommittal motion was offered at about 3.00 am, and the occupant of the Chair was reluctant to delay the House while the Speaker was woken up".
I want to know whether Mr. Speaker was woken up last night. Did the Minister bang on his door at 3 am and inform him of what we should be discussing today?
But let me finish my quote:


the occupant of the Chair was reluctant to delay the House while the Speaker was woken up to exercise his power of selection (which he alone can do). As the procedure under which the House considers a motion to recommit a bill is very brief … the Chair decided to let this motion go forward. The intention of the mover was in any case known in advance, and the (then) Government Whips were kept fully informed, so that there was no question of anyone being surprised.
I want to know where the Chief Whip is. And where is the Patronage Secretary? We are talking about setting a precedent, and frankly this is not good enough. We have already found out that Mr. Speaker was not woken up and there is no sign of the Patronage Secretary—just an empty green Bench and a couple of junior Whips. I am led to think that the Government are not treating the matter sufficiently seriously. I hope that, at the end of the debate, the Minister will offer us an apology and give us an explanation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): My hon. Friends have asked me a number of questions. I hope that I shall be able to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I may explain. Some fairly serious allegations have been made against me, but I feel that I can explain my role and that of the Government in this matter. Having said that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will leave out references to the Patronnage Secretary, who does not have a role in the matter. I shall accept my share of responsibility in due course.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
There is another member of the Government whom I should like to see present today. I do not see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but, according to my research —I may be wrong because I was advised of this by another hon. Member and I have not had an opportunity to confirm it—it is the Chief Secretary who tables such motions.

Mr. Forth: I shall refer to the matter in my remarks, but let me make it clear that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury puts his name to money resolutions. As I shall also explain, I was here last night to move the money resolution to show good faith on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Leigh: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend has mentioned various members of the Government who he feels ought to be present, but so far he has not referred to the Department of the Environment. It seems to me that the House is all too willing to place additional responsibilities on local authorities and then complain about the community charge levied by those authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that a representative of the Department of the Environment should be here to discuss this further additional burden upon community charge payers throughout the country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle will remember that we are dealing with a motion to recommit clause 12.

Mr. Leigh: I do not wish to delay the House any longer than I need to, to underline my constitutional point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
How extraordinary it is that the promoter of the Bill —the man who has piloted the Bill through the House so far—has not only informed the House that he was not aware that a money resolution was necessary; apparently he was not here last night and knew nothing of what the Minister was doing. I may have misunderstood and I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes me to do so. Is this a private Member's Bill or a Government Bill? Is it really up to my hon. Friend the Minister to rescue the hon. Gentleman from his own mistakes?
I am piloting a private Members' Bill through the House at present, and I do not expect Ministers of the Crown to rescue me from my own folly. Ministers of the Crown are supposed to give their views and observations on private Members' Bills on behalf of the Crown. They are not supposed to intervene in this detailed manner in private Members' business.
That is another constitutional point. The promoter of the Bill should have spotted the difficulty and ensured that a money resolution was incorporated in the Bill. I must say that, in that regard, some element of responsibility must rest with the Clerks, whose job it is to advise on these matters, although, as I said before, I make no criticism of them. We are not experts. I do not entirely blame the Bill's promoter, and perhaps if I had been bringing in such a Bill I would have made a similar mistake.
The Opposition are constantly criticising the Government for increasing the community charge and public expenditure in a way that they do not like. I do not want to waste the time of the House by quoting from the speech made on Second Reading by the promoter of the Bill, but I have read through it. Presumably he was trying to convince the House by what he left unsaid that the Bill would cost nothing. At the end of Second Reading and proceedings in Committee we found that the Bill would be a charge on the public purse.
Are our procedures worth nothing? Every schoolboy who studies our constitution knows that a Bill has to go through Second Reading, Committee and Report stage, during the last of which any amendments considered in Committee are considered again by the whole House. Finally, a Bill is given its Third Reading. Schoolboys are not told that in some cases, because mistakes are made, matters are sometimes swept under the carpet and someone says, "Let us send it to a Commitee of the whole House." We should reject the motion and send the Bill back to Committee for proper discussion which it has clearly not enjoyed thus far. I shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Wilshire: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), I rise to speak not because I oppose the Bill but because I want some guidance from the Minister and the promoter to help me make up my mind whether to vote for or against the motion. As hon. Members have said, the procedures being followed raise fundamental constitutional issues and cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. We must know whether what we are doing is right or merely expedient. If it is right, I shall vote for it; if it is a matter of expediency to help somebody out of a hole, I shall not vote for it.
I make no apology for detaining the House because two important constitutional issues are raised. First, how do we legislate and how is Britain governed by its legislature? Secondly, what is the quality of our legislation? We need to think about those matters before we go any further.


Some hon. Members have said that anybody who wishes to go down this road is simply using a procedural ploy to try to kill the Bill.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Quite right.

Mr. Wilshire: The intervention makes my point.
The Official Report makes it crystal clear that in Committee I said that I am not seeking to wreck the Bill. I wholeheartedly support its objectives and the record will bear me out. Every hon. Member wishes to encourage competition in the market place.

Mr. Griffiths: It is becoming apparent that the hon. Gentleman has come halfway round the world to sabotage the Bill and that there is an orchestrated attempt to sabotage it. That is the purpose of all the bogus filibustering points of order and amendments. Spurious points of order have been made, not one of which has been accepted by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as genuine. It is a monstrous filibuster to ensure that the consumer is the victim and to ensure that the rights of producers are protected by their vested interests.

Mr. Wilshire: That was a fascinating speech rather than an intervention, and it was wrong from start to finish. I am perfectly content to stand by my record and I do not worry about such ill-researched accusations. I sat through Second Reading and made constructive comments. The Opposition moved a closure motion which prevented me from making further constructive and helpful comments. I served on the Committee and I defy the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to find anything that I said there which was a wrecking tactic. My contributions were constructive. I pointed to weaknesses and offered to try to improve the Bill on Report. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he wishes to advance evidence to back his stupid claims.

Mr. Griffiths: If the Government were genuine in wanting to protect the consumer, by this stage we should be well into the proceedings and not engaging in nitpicking on technical aspects of the Bill. Notes have been passed to Conservative Members from the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Government Whip has been speaking from behind his hand issuing instructions to his colleagues. The tactics being employed are quite clear and we deplore them.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall deal with this continuing nonsense. It is clear from the intervention that if something is important to the Labour party, blow the constitution and the procedures of the House. I shall return to that. When it suits the Opposition's purpose, procedures seem not to matter. I was accused of returning to this country to take part in an attempt to kill the Bill. I shall explain why I made every effort to be here today. It is a courtesy to be involved in every stage of the Bill. I am sorry that I could not be here last night. At least I am prepared to apologise even if other hon. Members are not. I came back because I have played a constructive part from the beginning, and I wished as a matter of courtesy to the House to see the Bill through to the end. I reject the allegations that have been made.

Mr. Viggers: In view of the offensive attack by the Opposition, I should point out to my hon. Friend that when the issue came before the House on 26 January I was the first to intervene in the promoter's speech to say that I had a serious concern on behalf of the consumer electronics industry with which I have no financial connection whatever. I said that appendix 2, which lists the products that are the subject of the Bill, was too wide and I asked the promoter whether he would be prepared to consider revising that list. I have already expressed serious concern about the breadth of the Bill and I find it most offensive that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) should accuse me and others of seeking to filibuster and to destroy the Bill. That is certainly not my purpose.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend's intervention underlines the fact that the allegations being levelled against us are based on no research whatever. They are not backed by the facts, which makes one wonder just who is trying to wreck the Bill.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend will remember that I spoke on Second Reading and have followed the Bill closely. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) accuses us of wrecking tactics, but we did not create the situation. There has been no suggestion that this is the fault of those Back Benchers who did not sponsor the Bill. We have yet to hear whether the fault lies with the Minister or the promoter. We are being accused of delay and I find that offensive.

Mr. Wilshire: I entirely agree, and I shall return to that.
As I was seeking to make clear to the House when I was interrupted by Opposition nonsense, every hon. Member seeks to encourage competition in the market place between producers and products. There is no dispute about that. It is equally important to understand, when speaking about procedural matters, that the second objective of the Bill, which is about clearing up any doubt about consumer rights, is supported by all of us. Thirdly, when we pursue important procedural matters it is because we seek a better quality of product through legislation. There is no basic disagreement. It is possible to have concerns about procedural matters without being opposed to the objectives of the Bill. It is dangerous, however, to play fast and loose with the procedures of a sovereign Parliament merely because the intentions behind a Bill are laudable.
I realise that procedural wrangles excite people. Equally, I understand that such wrangles make bad viewing and bad listening. It is important, therefore, to spell out why procedural wrangles are sometimes of fundamental importance to the British people as well as to the House. First, it must be understood that this is a sovereign Parliament. We do not have a constitution and, to put it bluntly, if we wished to do so we could change anything we wished. We could pass whatever legislation we liked. That could be a dangerous power. If we are considering setting a precedent and behaving like a sovereign Parliament, as we have every right to do, we need to stop and think for a moment. We should step back from consumer protection and talk about the sovereignty of Parliament and the interests of the British people.


Secondly—this is a danger to guard against—we are about to enter into a discussion on whether the ends justify the means. Those who wish to question the means of keeping the Bill on the tracks are being accused of being against the Bill, but 1 am concerned that we do not take what history has shown time and again to be a dangerous step. When the ends are made to justify the means, awful things have a horrible habit of following. It is important that we take time to consider that.
Thirdly, even if we accept that the procedure that we are discussing is right for a sovereign Parliament, and even if we reject the worry about the ends justifying the means, what about the slippery-slope argument—that having done it once, it is convenient to do it again, perhaps in small ways initially—until in three, four or five years' time we discover that the House of Commons, far from being a protector of the British people, has become an organisation which will do anything on the spur of the moment merely because it suits the convenience of a private Member or the Government of the day? These matters are so fundamental that we need to stop and think about them.
The way in which legislation is processed is at the heart of every democracy, and we bring the process into disrepute at our peril. When mistakes are made, as has clearly happened in this instance, we have to learn to live with the consequences. It seems that we are being told that with a bit of sleight of hand, a quick vote and a shuffle, we can get rid of the record and start again. On a matter of such importance to the National Consumer Council and to consumers, we are being asked to do the opposite of what the Bill sets out to achieve.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend was kind enough to explain why he was unable to be present last night. I moved the money resolution at about 11 pm, almost at the close of the day's proceedings. My hon. Friend may not appreciate that I was able to move the resolution formally because the promoter was unable to be present. There was no debate on the resolution. My hon. Friend must understand that we have not had a chance to consider the money resolution in the way that we normally would. I hope that he will bear that in mind.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention as I wished to refer to that very matter. That is why I raised it on a point of order at the beginning of the debate. I wished to establish from Hansard what was said last night. There are some important issues to consider, and I shall refer to them in due course.
It is important to understand that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the manufacturer or supplier of a product is not allowed to get off the hook if it suits his convenience. That is at the heart of the Bill, but to enact it we are being asked to let the drafter, the promoter, the Minister and everyone else go back to the beginning again because a mistake has been made. That privilege will not be granted to a manufacturer if the Bill takes its place on the statute book. We are being asked to set a dangerous precedent.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the promoter is engaging in a charade with the House? I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to amendments Nos. 133 and 134, which stand in the promoter's name. I note that the promoter is not even listening. His amendments would provide no guarantee. Indeed, if they were accepted they

would make this discussion irrelevant. It is disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to table amendments in a hole and corner way which, if accepted, would take the guts out of his Bill. We are wasting the time of the House. As I have said, if amendments Nos. 133 and 134 are agreed to, this discussion will be irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not anticipate amendments which may be discussed later.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A serious matter has been raised. My hon. Friends and I have been accused of trying to waste time when we wish to debate important constitutional issues. We are being asked to agree to a motion which would enable the Bill to be reconsidered in Committee by a Committee of the whole House, to agree to a money resolution and to spend £1 million of public money, when there are amendments which, if agreed to, would wipe out all that we are dealing with now. Those amendments have been tabled by the promoter. It is a farce from beginning to end and there is a danger of the House being brought into disrepute. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to adjourn the sitting for a few minutes so that the promoter can reflect on what the hell he is playing at.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The procedure before us is complicated enough without introducing further complications. Let us take one step at a time. If we do that, we may get on better.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
For the moment, I shall be pleased to debate constitutional issues rather than the details of the Bill. It is vital that we separate what is fundamental to the way in which the country is governed from a piece of legislation that we may have to consider at another stage. First, we must overcome the hurdle of whether we can deal with the Bill this morning, but if I am asked to support the Bill I shall need to have frank answers to some pertinent questions. The formal statement made by the sponsor was, in my judgment, wholly inadequate and did not help me to make up my mind. We need to be persuaded why we should support the motion rather than being told why the motion is necessary. We must consider whether to support the motion, not whether it is necessary. We must consider whether we should set a precedent so as to enable the Bill to take its place on the statute book.
If the promoter can spare a moment from his discussion on tactics, I wish to put some questions which he must answer. First, may we be assured that clause 12 is the only clause which involves a money resolution, or shall we be told at some later stage that there is another? There must be a categorical assurance on the record so that we know where we stand. If things go wrong again, the same arguments cannot be advanced a second time.
Next, who is responsible for this cock-up?

Mr. John Marshall: Language!

Mr. Wilshire: I am only echoing what was said earlier. I believe that the term that I used properly describes the mess in which we find ourselves and I do not apologise for using it on this occasion—it is the best description that I can think of.
Who is responsible? Is it the National Consumer Council? The briefing that it sent to all hon. Members for


Second Reading, in support of a Bill which it openly admits to having sponsored and prepared from the beginning, and then persuaded the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) to bring forward, states on page 2 under the heading "Legally Sound":
The report was drawn up by an NCC working party, including practising lawyers and leading academics.
So the report was right. The most telling part of all states:
The Bill was drafted by experienced counsel with guidance from a leading authority on consumer law and technical assistance from the Former First Parliamentary Counsel.
10.30 am
Given that expertise, and that claim about how well things have been done, it is odd that we should be in this mess. Will the promoter of the Bill tell me whether the NCC has anything to answer for? Alternatively, was it the promoter himself? At the beginning he said no, and of course I believe him, but it would be helpful for him to explain in some detail why the answer is no.
No one has yet asked whether the Department of Trade and Industry was somehow responsible. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could tell me what Sir Humphrey and Bernard were up to during this process. Or, to come closer to home, was the Minister himself responsible? I am sorry to say this, but it must be put on the record if we are seeking to find out who got it wrong. Did his silence, for which he has been criticised, conceal something that he knew?
If it proves impossible to dig the Bill out of this mess, many accusations will follow. There will be attempts to spell out for the British public who was to blame. I can already imagine the toothy smile on a Sunday night, with a series of little pictures saying that these are the people who spoke about the procedures of the United Kingdom —send them a postcard. I can equally see some screaming headlines in Which?, with little photographs—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) wish to say something? It seems not.
Hon. Members will be accused of trying to kill the Bill, for whatever reasons. We must get this clear from the beginning. If people outside the House wish to apportion blame, we need to know the truth about who is to blame, or the wrong assumptions will be made.
Thirdly, will the promoter address the question of why the mistake was made? His answer will colour the way in which I vote. Was it because the people who prepared the Bill did not seek advice, or because they did not follow advice? It is important for us to know. Perhaps it was because they did not stop to think.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Tedious repetition.

Mr. Wilshire: Opposition Members may say that I am talking nonsense and accuse me of not wanting an answer, but I want an answer. If someone can show that the mistake was made in good faith, I will have some sympathy for the people who have got themselves into such a pickle. If it was done because someone could not be bothered, however, or because they thought that they knew better than the professional advice that they received, we are being asked to pay too high a price. We are being asked to get someone off the hook because of

incompetence. The democratic process is far more important than any piece of legislation, however worthy that legislation may be.
Fourthly, why is the promoter asking for a Committee of the whole House? That is dangerous. If clause 12 is considered in isolation by the whole House, what about the other clauses? What about those hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee? Surely we cannot consider a money resolution's implications and a specific clause if hon. Members have not heard the detail of the other parts of the debate. It is doubly dangerous to ask the whole House to deal with a little bit of a Bill that has not been considered in detail.

Mr. Roger Gale: It is done every time.

Mr. Wilshire: It is not done every time. If my hon. Friend had been here from the beginning, he would have heard it said that we are in danger of setting a precedent —[HON. MEMBERS: "He was here at the beginning."]—In that case, I withdraw that comment unreservedly.
It is certainly dangerous to ask the whole House just to consider clause 12. If we are to involve the whole House in detailed consideration of just one bit, the House should be entitled to consider every clause to put the Bill into context; otherwise, we are in danger of committing "ad hoccery" as well as setting precedents.
Those are four genuine questions to which I want answers. I hope that either the promoter of the Bill or the Minister—or both of them—will seek to answer those questions. Who made the mistake; why did they do it; why the whole House; and are we certain that clause 12 is the only clause involved? I do not speak for others, but the answers that I receive will determine how I vote later.

Mr. Gale: I am sad that so few of the Bill's original sponsors are here this morning. I am certain that many of them will have issued press releases to their local press, saying how strongly they support the concept of consumer protection legislation. I do not doubt that the leader of what used to be called the Liberal party, whose name is appended to the Bill and none of whose colleagues are present, will have ensured that the relevant hocus-pocus leaflets were issued the length and breadth of the land.
I strongly believe that all the sponsors of the Bill must take full responsibility for our present position—and I say that as one of those sponsors. I believe that to some extent we have failed in our duty in Committee. I say that with no pleasure whatsoever. There are hon. Members present who believe that this piece of consumer protection legislation is necessary: my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—not an original sponsor of the Bill—was stalwart in Committee in putting his point of view. Clearly it is our responsibility that the money implications of the legislation were not perceived in Committee—I accept that unreservedly—it is apparent that many hon. Members are inexpert in parliamentary draftsmanship, and not entirely expert in foreseeing all the financial implications of private Members' legislation.
It has been correctly said that this is an ambitious piece of legislation—perhaps over-ambitious for a private Member's Bill. It would have been helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister, with the support of his civil servants, had in Committee been able to say that there were financial implications that needed further consideration. Had that been done, we could have addressed the matter—even at a late stage—in Committee.


My hon. Friend the Minister has been accused of failing in his duty. I am saddened about that, and that aspersions have been cast on the performance of his civil servants and on that of the Clerks—which is unusual in the House, as we take responsibility for our decisions. It is our duty vigilantly to scrutinise legislation and to get it right. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister because although he did not raise the matter as a member of the Committee, at least he came here at a late hour last night and instigated the motion that we are now debating to allow the Bill to stay on the rails. Had he not done so, the proceedings would have collapsed because the Bill would have been unsound.
In essence, the Bill is simple. It seeks to give consumers guarantees that are worth the paper on which they are written. They must be written clearly and must be meaningful. As was said on Second Reading and in Committee, the products that we are seeking to include are those upon which most households, albeit infrequently, spend very large sums of money. Although my hon. Friend the Minister does not agree with every dot and comma of the Bill, I know that he believes that additional protection is necessary, either through this Bill or under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I hope and believe that those hon. Members present today also believe that additional consumer protection is necessary.
At the start of this morning's proceedings, Mr. Speaker ruled that it was in order to take this opportunity to correct an error made by the Committee, and therefore by the House. I do not regard that as setting a dangerous precedent, as some have suggested. The procedures of the House have been followed and Mr. Speaker has ruled that we are in order. Our procedures exist not to prevent legislation but to assist its passage. We want to get the Bill right. A large number of important amendments have been tabled both by the Bill's sponsor and by others, and we need to debate them this morning.
I hope that the House will not this morning send out a message to the public that we either wish to kill the Bill or that we are not concerned with the need for greater consumer protection through proper guarantees. I hope that the House will take this opportunity, which has quite properly been afforded by Mr. Speaker under our procedures, to accept the motion as swiftly as possible, so that the necessary corrections to the Bill can be made. We can then move on to discuss important amendments that will not only improve the legislation but make it possible for it to pass through its stages and become an Act that will give consumers the protection that I, at least, believe they deserve.

Mr. John Marshall: I was surprised when, earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister was described as unhelpful. I have known him for some time. He and I, together with our hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) were elected to the European Parliament in 1979. My hon. Friend the Minister is an independent person, and he became known as a highly conscientious and hard-working MEP. Now that he is a British Minister, he has unfortunately lost his independence, but he remains as hard-working and conscientious as ever.
Both my hon. Friend and the Bill's sponsor knew last night that a money resolution was required. It is obvious that the Bill's sponsor knew that, because it was he who tabled the motion on the Order Paper in respect of clause 12. However, it is significant that, of the two individuals

who are the kernel of the debate, it was my hon. Friend the Minister who was here last night to move the money resolution. My understanding is that the Bill's sponsor was not even here. Who is the more helpful Member—my hon. Friend or the Bill's sponsor? It is quite clear that it is very much my hon. Friend, who has been at the forefront in this matter.
It is appalling that a number of hon. Members have criticised the civil servants and the Clerks of the House, who must be silent advisers. As one of my right hon. Friends said on another occasion, advisers advise and Ministers decide. To attack advisers is deplorable and unparliamentary. They have no redress—[interruption.] It should be put on the record that advisers are hard-working, conscientious and, perhaps, reasonably well paid.
10.45 am
I am appalled that so much of the time of the House is being devoted to this discussion when the Bill's promoter wants to take the guts out of his own legislation. He intends to move amendments Nos. 133 and 134. Had he done that in Committtee, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would have accepted them. I should like some guidance from my hon. Friend on whether he finds the amendments acceptable——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate amendments that will be discussed later.

Mr. Marshall: They are relevant to this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are being asked to commit clause 12 to a Committee of the whole House, yet later the Bill's sponsor will move an amendment asking that a large slug of the Bill be removed. Clause 12 will then be irrelevant. How can the sponsor ask that clause 12 be committed to a Committee of the whole House and then later, on Report, ask that it be taken out of the Bill? It is Alice in Wonderland.
Has there ever been another occasion on which a Bill's sponsor has come to the House on a Friday morning and asked for a discussion in time that has not been allocated? I am sure that the House is aware that some of my colleagues want other Bills, such as the War Crimes Bill, to be considered by a Committee of the whole House. The Bill's promoter wants a Committee of the whole House to discuss clause 12, and then later he will say, "Take it out." That is monstrous. I cannot understand the logic that makes him think that this is the way in which the House should spend its time on a Friday morning.
This very important clause 12, which we are being asked to debate and then to take out of the Bill, seeks to impose statutory duties upon local authorities to enforce the provisions of the Bill—the provisions that the sponsor then wants to remove. The clause is a monstrous further imposition upon local Government. We are asking trading standards officers, who already have many important responsibilities—which many of us feel are not adequately carried out—to undertake additional responsibilities at a cost to the community charge of £1 million.
Only yesterday, Labour Members told us that the community charges were too high. I wonder how they will react when some authorities are capped in a few weeks' time. Will they vote for or against capping? This morning they are planning to increase the level of local Government expenditure—and at a time when trading standards officers cannot carry out all their current responsibilities. It


is highly irresponsible to discuss a clause that will add to local Government expenditure and the responsibilities of local authorities.
It is monstrous that the Bill's sponsor should waste so much of the time of the House asking us to debate clause 12 in detail, and then, when we come to debate amendments Nos. 133 and 134, ask us to take the guts out of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had had the courage to say that in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister would have accepted the amendments, and the House would not need to spend time today discussing a Bill that its own promoter believes is highly defective.

Mr. Squire: As I said at the beginning of my speech on Second Reading, I have a long-standing interest in Lombard North Central, which employed me before I became legitimate—if that is what one does on entering the House—and I remain a financial adviser to that company. However, that interest is not relevant to the motion before the House. When we debate the amendments, I hope that I may have an opportunity to explain that, thanks to the Bill's promoter and to the amendments that have been introduced, the finance industry is now satisfied with the Bill, whereas it was somewhat anxious about its original form. I make that point now in case there is any suggestion that I am speaking on behalf of that industry.
As I also said on Second Reading, parts of the Bill are important and should be put on the statute book, whereas other of its provisions are unworkable. I have tabled amendments that seek to improve what I consider to be the unworkable provisions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), a sponsor of the Bill, on his fair summation. I share his view that the Bill deserves support, but unlike my hon. Friend, I find it difficult to approve of the Bill in its entirety—partly because of my experience of the finance industry over a number of years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) legitimately raised the question of whether the House can be certain that no other part of the Bill similarly requires a money resolution, or some other form of resolution. That goes to the heart of our difficulty this morning. I am not too concerned about where responsibility for the error lies, with one exception that I shall mention later. Perhaps I was unfairly critical earlier of my hon. Friend the Minister, but we shall hear about that in a moment. However, I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are united in wanting to avoid any repetition of such an oversight. To do so, the House must establish where the responsibility for the error lies.
If the responsibility for this lies with my hon. Friend the Minister, it is arguable that the House should, today or on another occasion, instruct Ministers that they have a responsibility to ensure that a Bill's promoter—be it a Department or a private Member—is advised of any provisions in it that will require specific additional parliamentary action. It may be that ultimate responsibility for the oversight does not lie with my hon. Friend the Minister. If not, it must be that of the Bill's promoter. In that case, I should have an enormous amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, having myself piloted a Bill through the House.
Whatever the theory may be, it is impossible in practice for every right hon. and hon. Member to be wholly aware

of the more arcane aspects of parliamentary procedure and to be able unaided to spot an omission such as that which we are now debating. Even if a right hon. or hon. Member is expected to be so informed, the Select Committee on Procedure should consider how Members of Parliament —and the problem particularly affects ordinary right hon. and hon. Members—can be provided with sufficient information to ensure that the need for a money resolution is identified early, so that the House does not need to waste time when it should be debating the amendments that I am anxious to reach.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and he approaches the problem rationally. It may be helpful if I explain the procedure that is followed. Before a Bill reaches the Floor of the House for its Second Reading, it goes before a senior ministerial committee considering the following week's business. It used to be the most senior committee below the Cabinet. At that level, all the procedural expertise of the Government is brought to bear. The Department concerned advises the committee as to whether it opposes the Bill, and other interests within Government point out any procedural flaws or shortcomings. From the very start, the Bill now before the House should have been subject to scrutiny at the most senior level below Cabinet. It is inconceivable that the Minister and his Department could not have known of the flaw.

Mr. Squire: The House will be most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with past ministerial experience. If one accepts the accuracy of his remarks—and I certainly do—then clearly the finger points at my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs and at other Ministers.
The principle is of such importance because, although the legislation in question is a private Member's Bill, it is still a public Bill of this House. What if the Government had produced non-controversial legislation—for example, the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, or even the community charge Bill—and at the eleventh hour or later, had told the House, "We're terribly sorry, but we're advised that the Bill needs a money resolution to cover a particular clause."? I can imagine what the response would be. The Minister concerned would be laughed out of the Chamber, and the House would be unable to take any decision, perhaps for one week, and be held up to ridicule—as would the Government, and, arguably, rightly so.
When a Bill leaves Standing Committee, it becomes the property of the whole House and the distinction between a Government Bill and a private Member's Bill is no longer relevant for virtually all purposes. That, for the benefit of the public watching or reading this debate, is the significance of the matter before us.
As to the principle of what business should or should not be considered on the Floor of the House, during my 11 years in this place, it has been clear to me at least the kind of legislation that is conventionally considered by a Committee of the whole House—[Hon. Members: "The Patronage Secretary is here at last."] It is not often that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary arrives in the Chamber in the middle of one of my speeches, but whether that is a good thing or bad, I am not sure.
One category of legislation that is usually considered by a Committee of the whole House is that involving major


points of principle. Right hon. and hon. Members will soon be debating embryo research, when I understand that a key clause of that Bill will be considered on the Floor of the House. Many right hon. and hon. Members hold strong views on that subject, so it is right and proper that it should be debated in the Chamber rather than in Committee. Another category is legislation of constitutional importance.

11 am

Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) for intervening in his speech. Eleven o'clock on Friday is the normal time for statements and I see that the Patronage Secretary has just arrived. I am not sure whether he is the harbinger of a statement.
Late last night I was given information for the first time that the Ministry of Defence has unilaterally broken off negotiations with the borough of Gosport in my constituency about the future of the Royal Naval armaments museum there.
The borough of Gosport wished to take over the armaments museum, which contains unique and priceless artefacts ranging from the time of Henry VIII through to nuclear weapons and weapons used in the Falklands campaign. That museum is of great importance to my constituents.
The point of order is that I was not informed in advance of that unilateral decision by the Ministry of Defence. Within the rules of order, for example under Standing Order No. 20, or in some other way, is it possible to seek to bring this important issue before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a request for a statement from a Minister. At this stage it is not possible for the hon. Member to use Standing Order No. 20 procedure, but I am sure that he will find other ways to raise that important matter. In the meantime, I am sure that what has been said has been heard on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that I am one of the sponsors of the early-day motion on the Birmingham Six. In a Granada television drama documentary two weeks ago serious allegations were made about police brutality and the way in which the police had forced confessions out of the defendants. Yesterday, the deputy chief constable of the Yorkshire constabulary, who is conducting the inquiry into the now disbanded West Midlands serious crime squad, revealed that a number of police documents and notebooks have gone missing. Surely we should have a statement on that important matter today. If the Home Office does not clarify the issue there will be further doubt about its good faith in the matter of the Birmingham Six. Can we have a statement on that today as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I give the same answer to the hon. Gentleman as I gave to his hon. Friend. He should seek other ways to raise that important matter in the House. I am sure that his comments will also have been heard on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Squire: I hope that the House does not believe that I have finished my speech.

I was talking about the second reason for Bills to be legitimately debated in a Committee of the whole House —major constitutional issues.
Scottish devolution is one obvious example. If we were to have a Labour Government—however unlikely that is —I am sure that they would wish to discuss such as issue on the Floor of the Chamber, and no one would argue with the principle behind that. We would argue with the policy but not with the principle of taking it on the Floor of the House.
I do not argue that clause 12 is of such major or constitutional importance, but discussing it on the Floor of the House means that we seem to be acting out of mere convenience, rather than sending the Bill back to Committee for detailed examination, and I regret that, because it is not the right way for us to proceed.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend has said that this is a matter of administrative convenience. I am sure that the House wishes the Bill well and wants it to proceed. Therefore, this debate should be seen as a way forward rather than simply as a matter of administrative convenience. To take up his other point, there is a precedent for discussing financial matters in a Committee of the whole House. This subject is a financial matter and there is no reason why, as such, it should not be considered by the whole House.

Mr. Squire: I do not want to enter into an argument with my hon. Friend as I have much respect for him. However, my impression is that big issues—such as the Budget—tend to be discussed on the Floor of the House and others in Committee. I am happy to accept the principle behind what he says.
I regret that we are in this position today and I shall be happy when we come to discuss detailed amendments to the Bill.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As the Patronage Secretary is present and as he has such important influence in this place, I should like to know whether he will make a statement about the Greenham Common situation developing across the road on College Green, where one person was camping out with a notice board at the beginning of the week and now there are more than a dozen people. Every time I go past on my way to my office and back again I am accosted by people who ask me to sign petitions. When I tell them that the matter on which they are crusading appears to be the community charge, and that I like it, they are extremely abusive to me.
This morning there is a large notice there asking drivers to toot as they go past if they dislike the community charge. Since that is taking place within the curtilage of this House, where we discuss national issues and where visitors to our capital gather in large numbers, is it appropriate that such a group of people should be allowed to remain on the green?
I have made inquiries and asked for the matter to be brought before the House urgently. I have been given to understand that by some freak accident private consent was given for one person to be on the green for a limited time. However, this is developing into a Greenham Common situation and we must deal with it urgently or it will bring the House into disrepute. Think of the noise that


will be caused in the neighbourhood by the tooting of many car horns—by drivers who I have no doubt support the community charge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady is saying that the situation that she describes is taking place within the precincts of the House, and I shall cause inquiries to be made.

Mr. Bellingham: I do not want to delay matters, and I was not planning to speak in this short debate until the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) launched into an attack on the motives of Conservative Members. He talked about nit-pickers. I did not arrive in the Chamber until about ten minutes to 10 o'clock, and I am certainly not a nit-picker. I came to listen to the debate; I did not come to filibuster or to cause trouble. I have not had Whips and Parliamentary Private Secretaries hovering around me to tell me what to say, because I support the principles of the Bill and I have admiration for the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) who is its promoter. He is a good friend of mine and we have worked together closely on such matters as firearms and timber preservatives.
Far be it from me to try to put the boot in to the hon. Gentleman on his big day; that is the last thing I would wish to do. However, having listened to the debate for an hour and a half, I feel strongly that a number of important issues have emerged. I do not see how we can skirt round them in the way that some hon. Members wish to do.
I admire the sponsor of the Bill and the way in which he has presented it. It is weighty and full for a private Member's Bill and will carry considerable risks, even though hon. Members on both sides of the House support it. I find it extraordinary that the omission was not noticed earlier.
I understand that, in his brief introductory remarks, lasting one minute, the sponsor said that he had had expert advice on the Bill. He had access to a number of leading authorities on the subject. I find it extraordinary and beyond belief that they did not manage to spot this pitfall. It is staggering. The Bill was in Committee for a number of hours and although there was only a short discussion on the clause, at that juncture he was in a position to receive advice and help from a large number of people.
One of the principles of private Members' Bills is that they will not have major revenue or financial implications. I should have thought that the first thing any private Member would do, when presenting a Bill, would be to look carefully at those aspects. [Interruption.] I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to listen for one second. I am co-sponsor of his Bill on agricultural rights of way and we have considered the revenue implications in considerable detail. I am the second sponsor of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, on which we had a good debate.
My hon. Friend and I went through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb. We satisfied ourselves that that Bill contains no revenue or finance-raising implications. I should have thought that that was the primary task for any hon. Member who promotes a private Member's Bill. It is extraordinary that this problem was not spotted earlier. If that pitfall in clause 12 has been spotted, what about other

clauses? We may suddenly spot another ugly financial implication. That may also apply to other private Member's Bills.
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs on coming to the House last night to table the motion. However, he ought to have spotted this problem earlier. It is wrong for any hon. Member or Minister to cast aspersions on Clerks or civil servants. I have been in the House on a number of Fridays during the last year or so. I came to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, and I was here about a month ago to support another private Member's Bill.
I have never seen the Box so full of civil servants as on this occasion. It shows how hard they have been working on the matter. It is wrong for anyone to conclude that they are in any way to blame. We are elected to the House to scrutinise legislation. It is up to us to spot these matters. It is not up to Clerks or civil servants to do anything except guide us and help us when we need assistance. It is wrong to launch any attack on them, and I should like to distance myself from any such attacks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) referred to fundamental constitutional matters. It may be easy to do what seems to be neat and sensible on the day, but we could be creating an unfortunate precedent. In 10 or 15 years, another hon. Member, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, might come to the House on a Friday morning weighed down by Hansard reports and law books, pick up the report of this debate on Friday 30 March 1990 and take it as a precedent. We must be careful not to create a precedent. Therefore, the Bill ought to be referred back to the Standing Committee and looked at in great detail.
We are here this morning, ironically, to provide the consumer with guarantees, but we are also here as guardians of our constituents' interests and freedoms. If we create a precedent simply for the sake of expediency, we may come to regret it. We must therefore be cautious and bear in mind the point that was raised a short while ago: that it is ludicrous beyond belief that we should be discussing the committal of clause 12 to a Committee of the whole House when an amendment has been tabled to delete the clause. Are we not in "Alice in Wonderland"? We have reached the stage when we ought to return the Bill to the Standing Committee where the matter could be properly sorted out.

Mr. Forth: It is obvious from what has been said that hon. Members are very concerned about the matter. However, that concern has been expressed only on this side of the House. The Opposition do not seem to be concerned about this important issue. That puzzles me. When I have given my explanation, I expect the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) to give his explanation of these matters. He has been strangely silent up to now. However, that is a matter for him.
My hon. Friends have raised a number of important issues. However, I ought first to point out somthing that all hon. Members should bear in mind—that this is a private Member's Bill.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister has made it clear that the Government do not want the Bill. He has


organised that lot; they are filibustering instead of allowing the Bill to make progress. I have been sitting on a Committee that made progress on a Bill. We always make progress when I am on a Bill. The Minister is deliberately adopting delaying tactics. He intends to kill the Bill, if that is possible, but he had better watch out.

Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident that Bills in which he is involved always make progress, he ought to have involved himself a little more with this Bill during its previous stages. Obviously it needed considerable help.

Mr. Leigh: Before we hear any more nonsense about my hon. Friend trying to kill the Bill, will he confirm that he came here last night and saved the Bill from extinction? Will he also confirm that, if he had not come to the House last night and tabled the motion, the Bill would already have been dead?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall return to that point in a moment.
A number of my hon. Friends have criticised my role, but I hope that I shall be able to satisfy them that I have done my best to discharge honourably my responsibilities throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
I emphasise that this is a private Member's Bill and that therefore the primary responsibility for it must rest with the sponsor. It should not and cannot be otherwise. The Government are responsible for their Bills. Hon. Members who are fortunate enough to come high in the ballot for private Member's Bills must take responsibility for their Bills. Therefore, the primary responsibility throughout the proceedings lay with the sponsor and with those from whom he sought advice.
I assume that the hon. Gentleman sought advice from various sources—from the House authorities, as I do from time to time, and from the National Consumer Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised that point. Therefore, I should emphasise that taxpayers fund the National Consumer Council to the tune of £2 million a year in order to further the interests of consumers. Generally speaking, the council does good work.
However, in view of that council's conduct, to which my hon. Friend referred earlier—which shocked me and I shall be looking into it—we shall have to look at the way in which that council conducted itself in terms of the advice that it may or may not have given to the sponsor of the Bill.
Furthermore, if the National Consumer Council, funded by taxpayers money, is using that money to launch attacks on hon. Members, we shall have to look into the council's conduct and into the use into which it is putting taxpayers' money.

Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forth: You bet I will.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister saying to the House that he will investigate the National Consumer Council and that he is threatening to withdraw its funding if his investigations substantiate certain allegations that have been made?

Mr. Forth: In view of the allegations that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, I should be doing less than my duty as, for the time being, the

custodian of this large amount of taxpayers' money if I did not look closely into the way in which the National Consumer Council is conducting its affairs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be shocked and dismayed if l did not do that, as part of my duty.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The press release to which the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred was released by me. It said exactly what I intended it to say.

Mr. Forth: That is helpful. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Viggers: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: In a moment.
If it is the hon. Gentleman who is making scurrilous and unjustified attacks on my hon. Friend, that exemplifies what has happened throughout the proceedings on the Bill. That will have to be looked into; obviously it bears some examination.

Mr. Viggers: I simply want to put on record the fact that if I inadvertently misled the House, I apologise. I was not given a copy of the press release. I understood that it was from the National Consumer Council, but obviously I was incorrect.

Mr. Forth: We shall have to clarify these matters properly. I do not want to dwell on them, but I wanted to pick up the point that my hon. Friend raised.
We have established that, as this is a private Member's Bill, primary responsibility for its conduct must rest with the promoter and his advisers. However, I want to give the House my explanation, and, if necessary, my apology.

Mr. Alan Williams: A little while ago the Minister made threats—not even veiled threats—against the National Consumer Council. In view of the comments of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), can we take it that the Minister now withdraws those threats?

Mr. Forth: If what is alleged has taken place, it needs to be investigated. When I have established to my own satisfaction that matters are in order, no further action will be necessary.

Mr. Alan Williams: An hon. Gentleman has stood here in the House and said that the press release was his. Is the Minister accusing another hon. Gentleman of lying to the House, which is not permitted under the rules of the House?

Mr. Forth: We are making rather heavy weather of this. I hope that Opposition Members are not trying to delay the proceedings, but it is beginning to look as if they are. I am trying to explain my role in this from the Dispatch Box, as many of my hon. Friends have asked me. All that Opposition Members can do is seek to delay the proceedings. That is rather disgraceful, but as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has asked me, I shall say it again in words of as few syllables as I can manage.
The sponsor of the Bill and the National Consumer Council worked closely, and they bear joint responsibility for the Bill. It is no secret that the Bill grew out of a report by the National Consumer Council, which, I understand, was largely responsible for drafting the Bill. If scurrilous accusations have been made about someone, we know not who made them at this stage, nor do we know the role that


the National Consumer Council may or may not have played in the matter, but as it is an organisation in receipt of taxpayers' money, we should be satisfied about how it is spending that money.

Mrs. Gorman: As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Bill was originally produced by the National Consumer Council. However, the Confederation of British Industry has criticised the drafting of the Bill because the evidence on which it was drawn up was so poorly assembled and the transactions of which people allegedly complained had not been evaluated or quantified. So the CBI made very strong criticisms of the National Consumer Council.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. As proceedings unwind today, we may have to look more closely at the roles and relationships and what different people and organisations have said and done, but I do not want to get unduly bogged down in that now.
A few moments ago, I was attempting to clarify for the House my role in the matter, and in doing so I accept my share of the responsibility. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, by convention if not by rule of the House, the Government are responsible for laying money resolutions when they are established as a necessary part of a Bill. That much is clear. In the normal course of events, a money resolution should have been tabled before the Bill left Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) pointed out that I was present throughout the proceedings of the Committee, as I should have been, and that none of us identified that a money resolution should have been a necessary part of the Bill. Casting around for blame, as some of my hon. Friends have done, is probably a fruitless exercise, although a vital point may have been concealed. It has led to the constitutional point raised so ably by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), and I shall return to that in a moment.
Let us focus on why this private Member's Bill was given a Second Reading and completed its Committee stage without that need having been identified. I accept my personal share of the responsibility, but at the same time I totally exonerate officials in my Department and deny that they were in any way to blame. The officials in my Department have played an honourable, expert and detailed role throughout. I accept that the blame for not spotting the need for a money resolution is mine alone. However, during this morning's proceedings we have established that it was not so obvious that the Bill required a money resolution that we should have spotted it as readily as some have suggested. That is my only exoneration of my role.

Mr. Squire: The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), in a helpful intervention in my speech, referred specifically to a senior committee. I assume that he was speaking from experience. Can my hon. Friend shed some light on that, as it appears to be one way in which that discrepancy might have been discovered, if such a Committee exists?

Mr. Forth: I might have to be uncharacteristically coy. My hon. Friend is trying to get me to reveal some of the

inner workings of Government, which by tradition are not revealed, certainly from the Dispatch Box, and I hope from nowhere else either. I concede that the Government consider such matters, but it is not necessarily the case that procedural matters are dealt with by the Government, as their collective responsibility relates to policy matters, but not procedural matters. We are dealing with a procedural matter.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, when a Bill goes before the non-existent committee which none of us admits operates under whichever Goverment are in power, if there is a major procedural fault in the legislation, that would normally be pointed out as part of the background to the Bill.

Mr. Forth: Yes, but we are getting our time sequence out of synchronisation. If a Bill went to the committee that hon. Members have hinted at, that committee would not be obliged to identify whether a Bill required a money resolution. That normally happens in Standing Committee, as the clause that requires a money resolution might well be deleted in Committee. Therefore, it is only reasonable to say that, until the Committee stage had been completed, we could not identify whether there should be a money resolution.

Mr. Williams: I am delighted to see the Minister digging himself into a pit, but he is digging himself increasingly deeper. The Bill would have been considered by that committee before its Second reading, but the Minister is saying that no one would have cared whether it needed that money resolution, although it should have been tabled at that time, because it was possible that the relevant clauses might have been removed in Committee. However, the Minister did not move an amendment to delete those clauses, so he was either culpable or irresponsible.

Mr. Forth: I am beginning to wonder about the right hon. Gentleman's motive in this. Is it not peculiar, as some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out, that the promoter of the Bill should come to the House and move recommittal into Committee for a clause that he may subsequently want to delete? There are all sorts of anomalies and inconsistencies, but those of my hon. Friends who have not been involved in the Bill up to now —although a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have—may be beginning to get the flavour of the Bill. I have to say with all my normal charm and courtesy that the conduct on the Bill throughout has not exemplified coolness, preparation or determination. It has exemplified a degree of chaos and a lack of organisation which have made the Bill its own worst enemy.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is a large, complex and controversial Bill, as the number of representations we have all received will illustrate. That in itself would be bad enough, but the fact that the promoter of the Bill has not received good advice means that we have reached this stage with a procedural point on our hands, with doubts being expressed about how, why and where it should have been tabled and with me having to stand at the Dispatch Box having to explain my role in events. That illustrates the problem that we face.

Mr. Wilshire: Before my hon. Friend departs from his point about blame and responsibility, may I say that it is typical of his generosity and graciousness that he is willing to carry the can? However, I find that surprising and


difficult in this case. Is he saying that Back-Bench Members can draft what we like and that, if we are lucky in the ballot, we can wash our hands of the responsibility for ensuring that it complies with our procedures? If that is his thesis, I find it extraordinary. As I said earlier, the NCC gave an undertaking that expert counsel went through the Bill. Are we not entitled to expect that, if outside experts say that they have done something, they must carry their share of the blame?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is entitled to express that view. We are trying to tease from this confusion where the relative responsibilities lie, which is difficult. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, if this morning's proceedings have done nothing else, they have helped the House to consider the pitfalls and traps that we can fall into and see whether we can avoid them in future. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West may have done all future promoters of private Members' Bills a large service in inadvertently bringing to their attention and that of the House, the House authorities and the Clerks the fact that this problem can easily arise. It has taken us all by surprise.
I shall attempt to give an explanation of my role. It was not until last week that, almost inadvertently, we identified the lacuna in our procedures and the Bill. I moved as quickly as possible to establish the procedural position and what responsibility I may have had in the matter. Towards the end of last week, we established beyond reasonable doubt, bearing in mind all the points about precedent that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle has raised, that a money resolution was required for the Bill. I was then told that, by convention, it had to be moved by the Government, in Government time. I hope that my hon. Friends understand my position and that the promoter will give me some credit for moving as quickly as I could to find Government time and to persuade my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to put his name to a money resolution and commit public funds to the Bill, should it be necesssry if the Bill is passed.
I then ensured that I was in the House in person at 11 pm last night to make sure that the money resolution was approved. I was surprised that the promoter was not present, and he must give his explanation of that. I am pleased, although only to one extent, that the House approved the money resolution on the nod. It leaves us with the slight difficulty that, even at this stage, we have not had an opportunity fully to debate what the money resolution might mean. I hope that such an opportunity may arise.
We are still considering the procedural motion whether we should refer the Bill to a Committee of the whole House to consider the implications of clause 12 and the money resolution. I do not want to detain the House much longer. I hope that, when we decide whether to recommit the Bill, we shall have an opportunity fully to consider the implications of the money resolution.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend support this procedural motion?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will agree that what the promoter says will be crucial in persuading us whether we should support the motion. I have not yet made up my mind.[Laughter.]

Mr. Hugh Dykes: That is a revealing display from Opposition Members, especially considering all their recent criticisms that the Government are oppressive with private Members' Bills and always interfering with them. Here is a Minister with an open-minded, flexible attitude, encouraging the promoter to give a lucid, reasonable explanation of his attitude.
Does my hon. Friend agree that every promoter is in charge of the progress and success of his Bill, and therefore should be competent to steer it through? Does he agree that it is good fortune to win the ballot for Bills and procedures? My hon. Friend has reacted fairly and reasonably in saying that he has not yet decided his stance on this complicated point. This is an unusual procedure and mistakes have been made, yet all we hear from Opposition Members are ignorant guffaws. I am sorry to use such a strong adjective. Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members should welcome his being potentially so helpful? I thank him for taking this attitude.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a revealing episode. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has asked the promoter to explain how he saw the procedure developing and I am waiting to hear the answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Well, sit down."] It is distressing that Opposition Members appear to mock us for listening to the debate on this important procedural and constitutional issue before making up our minds.
Whether the House approves the recommittal is an open question. We may set a precedent. We have certainly teased out some serious problems. I must say yet again, although I do not wish to over-emphasise the point, that the primary responsibility for the scrutiny, integrity and progress of a private Member's Bill must rest with the promoter. The Government may or may not have a role of one kind or another, but they certainly must not be seen to be responsible for ensuring that the Bill proceeds or is in order.
Given all those factors, I shall listen to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West and then decide whether it is right to support the recommittal, or whether we should reconsider the Bill in some other way or at some other time. I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friends who have asked questions. I have been as open with them as possible in explaining my role. I have given my apology to the House for any oversight of mine. I have tried to persuade the House that I moved as quickly as possible to ensure that the Bill would not fall as a result of an oversight by me or the promoter.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I appreciate that. I really want to know my hon. Friend's intentions. I accept that we have a serious procedural difficulty and that we must be cautious. I do not take the high constitutional line adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). My hon. Friend the Minister could advance the interests of the House. He will remember that he did not manage to block the Bill on Second Reading, because the House showed its support by the procedural means of accepting the closure.
If my hon. Friend can say that the Government are well disposed towards the central intentions of the Bill and that, if this motion fails, they will legislate along the lines of the Bill, making full use of my hon. Friend's breadth of


experience and the extraordinarily hard work of his Department on the Bill, I will be satisfied that his intentions are good.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he allows me to make my position clear. He sat through the Committee stage and he knows that I was never happy with the Bill. I always thought that it contained serious flaws and difficulties, and the advice I gave on Second Reading and in Committee was that it was "irredeemable and irrecoverable".
I have made no secret of the fact, however, that we want to update the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and that part V of the Bill therefore has my support. I have also given an undertaking that, partly as a result of the National Consumer Council report and partly as a result of the Bill, should the Bill not succeed, I shall want to consider the whole subject of guarantees to see what can properly be done. I have said that before, and I am delighted to repeat it. That does not mean that I do not support the Bill in its present form: I am waiting to see how it might emerge either from recommittal to Committee or on Report. I shall then decide how to advise my hon. Friends.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend is renowned for his statesmanlike approach to such matters. Will he confirm to the House and to the promoter that, if the promoter's amendments Nos. 133 and 134 were passed, my hon. Friend would be able to recommend to the House that the Bill should be approved?

Mr. Forth: Among the guidance that the promoter will seek to give the House on the procedural matter of a recommittal to Committee, I hope that he will explain why those rather odd amendments have appeared in his name. I accept that we shall come to them subsequently, but they are germane to our debate, as it is rather interesting and somewhat puzzling—I share my hon. Friend's confusion —that the amendments have appeared out of the blue and without, as yet, a word of explanation from the promoter.
I hope that I have given a full explanation to the House of my position on the Bill. If there are any other matters that need to be clarified, I shall be delighted to do so. We now all look forward to hearing the advice of the promoter. Perhaps he will give us an inkling about how he believes we shall proceed during the rest of the day.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I am deeply saddened by what we have heard in the past two and a quarter hours. The Government move business motions and procedural motions regularly. On Wednesday they moved two procedural motions relating to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill, as well as a money resolution last night. Much of the debate on this motion has been totally insignificant.
As the promoter of the Bill I accept responsibility for it, but I have already said that I will not accept all responsibility. A number of problems were inherent in the procedures on the Bill. I shall not lay blame in any quarter, but I am extremely glad that the Minister has also admitted that he is to blame. That is a move forward and I like the way in which he has put matters right.
I should like to put matters right regarding the money resolution. I saw the title of the Bill come up on the annunciator and I was on my way here when it

disappeared off the screen. I judged that it was an uncontroversial measure and had gone through on the nod.

Mr. Don Dixon: Will my hon. Friend also accept that the Government had to put a money resolution through on the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill last night and extend the long title of it before amendments were debated because they had made a cock-up?

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I have already said, such motions are tabled by the Government all the time without two-hour debates about their constitutionality.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Did the Government notify the hon. Gentleman that they intended to table the money resolution?

Mr. Jones: Yes, they informed me on Monday and I was grateful. I assumed that it was a procedural measure which would cause no problems. No problems arose last night about that money resolution or about the one for the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill.

Mr. Dykes: I am intrigued by all this. Surely the promoter of a Bill should be present when its money resolution comes before the House. Why did the hon. Gentleman miss that particularly important moment?

Mr. Jones: One of the sponsors was in the Chamber and I would have been here within minutes. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that one cannot predict exactly when an item of business will come before the House. If he does not admit that, he is not the man I thought he was.

Mr. Dykes: rose—.

Mr. Jones: I shall not give way and I will not be a party to talking out my own Bill.
I wish to put straight the many unnecessary and trivial comments that we have heard today. [Interruption.] Credit is due to the Minister for putting right what he admits was his mistake. He said he was to blame and I commend him for that.[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. There are too many private conversations going on. I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Jones: I give way to the Minister.

Mr. Forth: I did not hear exactly what the hon. Gentleman said because of the hubbub from the Opposition. I said that we must all share an element of the blame, but the promoter of the Bill has the main responsibility. I hope that I admitted that I was prepared to accept that to the extent that Government have any role in private Members' Bills, I had a responsibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I discharged my responsibility thereafter.

Mr. Jones: Obviously the Minister did not hear what I said because of the hubbub, but Hansard will put the


record right for both of us. I am trying to give the Minister credit for accepting his part of the blame, but obviously I accept overall responsibility.
I am sure that hon. Members also accept that, as a Back Bencher, I do not have the panoply of advice available to Ministers. In all honesty, I accept the overall responsibility, and for any bad advice that I have been given from whatever source. I am not attempting to lay the blame elsewhere. I am glad that the Minister has accepted his responsibility and has done his best to put the matter right. He demonstrated that by tabling the money resolution, which is a ministerial responsibility.
I hope that the House will accept the unexceptional motion. A mistake was made but, whoever was responsible, it was made in good faith. I hope that we can proceed into Committee.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 0.

Division No. 150]
[11.48 am


AYES


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Murphy, Paul


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Norris, Steve


Barron, Kevin
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Patchett, Terry


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Pike, Peter L.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Carrington, Matthew
Primarolo, Dawn


Chapman, Sydney
Quin, Ms Joyce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Randall, Stuart


Clay, Bob
Rathbone, Tim


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Richardson, Jo


Cohen, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Crowther, Stan
Ruddock, Joan


Cryer, Bob
Sedgemore, Brian


Cummings, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Shersby, Michael


Dixon, Don
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Fearn, Ronald
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Fisher, Mark
Squire, Robin


Fookes, Dame Janet
Stanbrook, Ivor


French, Douglas
Strang, Gavin


Gale, Roger
Straw, Jack


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Summerson, Hugo


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Trotter, Neville


Harris, David
Vaz, Keith


Haynes, Frank
Viggers, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Walker, Bill (T'slde North)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Waller, Gary


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Wheeler, Sir John


Illsley, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Winnick, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Macdonald, Calum A.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Dr. John Marek.


Madden, Max





NOES


Nil


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Edward Leigh and



Mr. David Wilshire.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Bill be recommitted to aCommittee of the whole House in respect of clause 12.

Order read for consideration in Committee.

Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the motion is debatable?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct; the motion is debatable.

12 noon

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave you notice that I intended to raise this point of order, which has nothing to do with the Consumer Guarantees Bill, although it relates to a matter of concern to the House.
I would welcome your guidance in respect of a circular letter from the Department of the Environment, which was on the board this morning, for all Members of the House, dealing with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, dog registration and other matters. I do not propose to comment on the contents of the letter, but it has been brought to my attention that a number of complaints have been received from hon. Members and from hard-working Members of staff—the doorkeepers who look after the message and letter boards—about the increasing frequency of circular letters from Departments that are put on the board for all Members.
I must emphasise that I am not criticising ministerial colleagues. Presumably it is the civil servants who decide whether to send such letters. The difficulty is that that practice creates unnecessary extra work for the doorkeepers, who presumably have to deal with 650 copies of each letter. No doubt the Department is understandably seeking to save postage costs by not sending the letter through the normal postal service, addressed to individual Members at the House of Commons or at their own addresses. Although the money-saving exercise may be desirable and praiseworthy in one sense, one must ask whether it is right for the House to be burdened in this way.
Presumably it is not an urgent letter, although it may be of interest to hon. Members. If the matter were urgent, one could understand a hand-delivered message being left on the board for all hon. Members. Equally, a hand-delivered letter for a smaller number of hon. Members would be understandable. But surely a universal circular letter from a Department on a non-urgent aspect of policy should go through the normal postal service rather than being allowed to place an extra burden on the House authorities. I would welcome your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is raising an important point. I think that he realises that it is a matter not for the Chair but for the Services Committee.
I suggest that he makes his point to that Committee and asks it to consider the matter.
Motion made, and Question Proposed, That this House do immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Mr. John Marshall: This is no filibuster; it is an attempt to get some legislation out of the administrative chaos that the promoter of the Bill has created. We find ourselves debating this motion at 12.2 pm because of the chaos and mayhem for which the promoter has accepted primary responsibility. It is always encouraging when a politician stands up and says, "Mea culpa," and this morning we have heard the encouraging


sound of two politicians doing so. We should congratulate both of them on their willingness to accept their share of responsibility rather than seeking to hide behind the skirts of civil servants—or even their trousers.
There is one positive reason why the Bill should not be debated in Committee this morning. By tabling amendments Nos. 133 and 134, the promoter has indicated his willingness to remove the guts of his own Bill. The Minister has made it clear from the beginning, that the Government would welcome the amendment of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and I think that the Opposition would do the same. If amendments No. 133 and 134 were carried, that is what would happen. If we delayed our debate on the Bill until the next private Members' day, we should give the promoter of the Bill the opportunity to go to the Minister, who is a very reasonable gentleman—on this and on every other matter—and ask, "Can we do a deal?" I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman went to the Minister with that progressive attitude, the Minister would be happy to do a deal.
We should not debate the measure further this morning, because we are getting into controversial style —not usually the style of the Minister or of Conservative Members generally. We have been pushed into it by the events of last night. Given that that is the case, we should give the promoter of the Bill the opportunity to go behind the Chair to talk to the Minister and see whether a compromise can be reached.
If we debate this Bill, we shall be prevented from debating the other private Members' Bills whose titles appear on the Order Paper. No doubt some hon. Members will have read the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill, which is the next Bill on the Order Paper. If we were not debating motions related to the Consumer Guarantees Bill, in this slightly cantankerous way, we should be debating that Bill and I came to the House hoping that we should be doing so. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Raoul Wallenberg was one of the great heroes of the second world war. As a citizen of neutral Sweden——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to discuss the next Bill, which may or may not be called today.

Mr. Marshall: I hesitate to cross swords with a man of your eminence and experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely we are faced with alternatives. We can carry on debating the Consumer Guarantees Bill or we can drop that Bill and go to the next item on the Order Paper, which is the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill. We must weigh the relative merits of dealing with the current Bill and of dealing with the next Bill and we can do that only if we discuss, albeit briefly, the provisions of the next Bill. Raoul Wallenberg was a great international figure——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I must reiterate that this is a narrow procedural motion and he must stick to it in his speech.

Mr. Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Squire: Is not my hon. Friend overlooking the fact that if, as I suspect, the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill

has universal appeal, we may reach later Bills, including the Local Government (Access to Information) (Disabled Persons) Bill, on which I am very keen?

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right. As I hope that no one will object to the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill, we may reach later Bills, one of which is the Rape in Marriage (Offence) Bill. The Government have shown their progressive approach by announcing an inquiry. I had hoped that that Bill would be reached this morning, because it would bring the law of England and Wales into line with the law in Scotland, which would be a progressive step. My hon. Friend the Minister has a deep knowledge of Scottish law, because, like me, he lived in Glasgow for some time. He knows that Scottish law is frequently superior to the law in England and Wales and I have no doubt that he would like the law in England and Wales to be brought into line with that in Scotland on this matter.
We must examine closely the alternative before the House this morning, which is to discuss the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill. Wallenberg was a great hero of the second world war. One hundred thousand lives were saved because those people were given a Wallenberg passport——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not quite got my point. He must not anticipate Bills that may or may not be discussed later. He was perfectly in order in the first part of his speech, and I am sure that he will stick to that theme.

Mr. Ron Davies: He will repeat it.

Mr. Marshall: I must appeal against attempts to impugn my name. Perhaps the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) wishes to make a proper intervention, in which case I shall happily give way. If he does not wish to intervene, he should bow to the normal courtesy of the House and allow an hon. Member on his feet to continue to speak without uttering sedentary interventions which distract that hon. Member and affect the good humour of the House.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Both my hon. Friend and I hope that the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill will be reached. Does he agree that the best way to ensure that is to sit down and let the present Bill proceed?

Mr. Marshall: I was slightly surprised when the lady who hopes to succeed my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) announced that, if she was elected to the House, she would give up acting. She should quickly learn that politicians can act too.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted, but I am sure that he will act within the rules of order of the House.

Mr. Squire: rose——

Mr. Marshall: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Squire: If my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) had heard the whole of this morning's debate, he would understand that so many amendments are necessary to get the Bill into an


acceptable state that, if the motion is accepted, there is no question of the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill being reached.

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth. It is clear that, if we were fully to discuss the many amendments to the Bill, and especially amendments Nos. 133 and 134 which were tabled by the promoter, we would have no opportunity whatever to proceed to the long agenda before the House. We all came here to talk about the important Bills on the Order Paper, and it is essential for us to reach them. I am glad to see that the promoter is consulting his colleagues. He should consult the Minister to see whether there is a way out of this impasse.
All hon. Members have accepted the need for the Sale of Goods Act 1979 to be amended.

Mr. Dykes: Can my hon. Friend give the House more guidance on this matter, because some semantics and confusion are creeping in, although I am sure that that is not his fault? Is he saying that the proposed amendments are so complicated and lengthy that there is no possibility of a compromise, or does he feel that that possibility still exists and that there is still time as the Bill has substantial support?

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that there is the possibility of a compromise, but I suspect that there is not much compromise in the atmosphere today. However, if we all had a weekend in our constituencies and came back on Monday, I am sure that the spirit of compromise would prevail. My hon. Friend the Minister is a reasonable and moderate man and has made it quite clear in Committee and in the House that he would like to see the Sale of Goods Act amended. There is no doubt that the promoter would also like to see it amended, as would almost every hon. Member.
The way to do that is for the promoter of the Bill to recognise that, given the number of amendments to the Bill, we will not have an adequate chance to debate them today. I appeal to his good nature and ask him to do a deal with the Minister. Such a deal would be more likely if we did not debate the Bill today. We should defer it and move on to the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill and the other important Bills on the Order Paper. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to let pride come before a fall. If he has too much pride in his creation, there is a danger that it will fall. If he adopts a moderate approach, he will make progress.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not mean to be so gratuitously rude to the promoter of the Bill. I served on the Committee that examined the Bill and, like other hon. Members, I commend the promoter for his extraordinary courtesy. He went as far as he could to meet all objections, to the extent of moving amendments to ensure that they were debated. There is no question of pride going before a fall. Some of us would have liked the promoter to be more assertive on some points, but his conduct has been exemplary.

Mr. Marshall: I apologise to the promoter if I was being gratuitously offensive. That is not my style, nor that of the Minister. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his intervention.
I appeal to the Bill's promoter to allow the spirit of compromise to reign and to do a deal next week with the Minister. No one would then object to the Bill, subject to amendments Nos. 133 and 134 being made. That would be a much better path for the House to follow than to debate the Bill later today.

Mr. Wilshire: We have had a long debate on the first issue that we had to decide, which was a matter of some constitutional importance. I welcome the fact that the House has now made clear its view. We now know where we stand in terms of the principle of what we have to do to put the matter right. If we can put it right, the consumer will get a better deal in future.
Having taken that decision in principle, we now face some serious additional procedural issues arising from the motion to recommit and deal with the Bill immediately. If we pass the second motion, we will give the Bill preference over all others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has said, there are 24 other matters on today's Order Paper. As well as giving the Bill special treatment, we are ignoring the normal parliamentary timetable. I have often heard hon. Members complaining about not enough time being allowed or about somebody trying to steamroller legislation through the House.
Once again, we are having to consider serious procedural issues, and we have seen blood pressure rise. We saw the symptoms of that a moment ago. I have no doubt that, before I sit down, we shall hear again the allegations that this is a great waste of time.

Mr. Ron Davies: Absolutely.

Mr. Wilshire: That intervention makes my point. The Opposition are saying that the procedures about how we run the United Kingdom are a waste of time. We shall also hear them say that hon. Members were not elected to get involved in such things. This is not a waste of time, because Parliament's job is to protect the rights of a whole range of people.
In the course of one sitting, we have granted the Bill one big favour and are being asked to give it a second. As I said first time round, if I and other hon. Members are to be persuaded to vote for a second big favour we need to know the reasons. I asked four questions earlier, and I think that I got about one and a quarter answers. That is no way to treat the House. If there is a desire to get legislation through, reasons have to be given, especially on a Friday morning when the Whips are not involved.

Mr. Ron Davies: Not much! There are more Whips on the Government side than on this side.

Mr. Wilshire: There are more Whips on the Government side, and that is a demonstration that Conservative Members are far more ready to listen to the reasons for voting for or against.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Government Whips are not on the Front Bench. They are busily going round trying to orchestrate a filibuster on this matter. I was told that the Government Whips were trying to mount a sophisticated exercise. Anyone who has experienced the crude filibuster this morning must know that it is aimed at wrecking part I of the Bill.

Mr. Wilshire: That is a fascinating intervention. When the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard, he will see that I


said that there are more Government Whips in the building and in the Chamber today than Opposition Whips. I commended my hon. Friends for being here on a Friday morning willing to listen to the debate before making up their minds.
When we are asked to do favours in the House, the reasons for them must be spelled out. Some questions must be posed and answered if we are to make progress. The first issue that was raised by the Opposition is the question of wasting time. Are we wasting time?

Mr. Ron Davies: Yes.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Whenever I seek to clarify how the Opposition view these matters, they obligingly tell me that anyone who seeks to talk about the procedures of the House and the nation's constitution is wasting the time of the House. Let them continue to say that. The more that they do so, the more the people will understand what the Labour party really stands for.
My hon. Friends and I are not wasting time, and I say that for some important reasons. Private Members' Bills are the precious right of all Back-Bench Members. Back-Bench Members queue each year in their hundreds for the right to introduce a private Member's Bill, and each year 20 strike lucky. Of the 20, only six, on average, stand anything like a realistic chance of getting legislation on to the Statute book.

Mr. Dykes: So fantastic is the opportunity for the first six of the 20 that I have always regarded it as sacred that the promoters with that good fortune watch every millimetre of the development of their Bills all the way through the legislative process, including—I do not wish to be unkind—money resolutions. It is entirely feasible to tell when money resolutions will appear on the Order Paper, for example. It surprises me if there is the slightest appearance of insouciance on the part of a promoter that could jeopardise his Bill, which may be wanted by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Is my hon. Friend rather depresesed by what he has seen? There are many desirable features of the Bill which hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome, subject to suitable amendment if there is time. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have seen during the passage of a significant piece of legislation has been rather saddening?

Mr. Wilshire: I would not say that I am depressed, but I understand what my hon Friend says. I am more alarmed than depressed by the position in which we find ourselves.
In defending the rights of Back-Bench Members, it is important that the House sends a message to all those who are present this afternoon, and to those who are not, that hon. Members who are fortunate enough to secure a place in the top 20, as it were, and especially in the top six, must understand that the House will apply the same standards of scrutiny and care to their Bills as it applies to Government legislation. If it does not, private Members' occasions will become ever more sloppy and their Bills ever more badly drafted. As a result, precious opportunities to legislate will be lost. The message must be that Back-Bench Members get it right before they start.
We must speak up for all Back-Bench Members, but we must remember that there are supporters of worthy causes outside this place who have interests as well.

Mr. Gale: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that all legislation should be right before it begins its passage through this place? If so, my colleagues on the Government Front Bench might have something to answer for.

Mr. Wilshire: That is an interesting thesis, which I shall not pursue. If my hon. Friends and I went down that track, we might be here until next Friday. It would not then be possible to make progress.
We must consider the rights and interests of supporters of worthy causes as much as the rights and interests of Back-Bench Members. As I have said, hundreds of Back-Bench Members queue every year to take their chance in the ballot, and at the same time there are hundreds of good ideas queueing up every year. Almost all those ideas would, in some shape or form, make for a better Britain. Only 20 of all the many good ideas will ever get into print in any one year, and of the 20 only half a dozen are likely to take their place on the statute book.
However, each of the hundreds of ideas, if implemented, stands some chance of righting a wrong, and each one will help individuals who have particular problems. Most important of all, each idea has the backing of enthusiastic supporters. We must consider the enthusiastic supporters of the Bill that is before us, including enthusiastic Members, but at the same time we must take account of and speak up for those who support causes that have not secured first place in the ballot.
If we are tempted to give special treatment over and over again to one cause, we are in danger of riding roughshod over the interests of other Back-Bench Members. We are in danger also of turning a deaf ear to those who have good causes who have not been lucky enough to persuade six of our collegues to take them on board.
We must protect the rights of Back-Bench Members, the sponsors of private Bills that are designed to further worthy causes and the members of pressure groups, but we must consider whether it is important to take time to deal with procedural issues when there are matters that other hon. Members wish to pursue so that other private Members' Bills can find their way on to the statute book. I believe that we should give attention to procedural matters.
To recommit the Bill now would be to fly in the face of the normal timetables of the House. I have not been in this place long enough to be a procedural expert, but as I understand it there have to be several days between a Second Reading, a money resolution and consideration in Committee. That has been the procedure since I have been in the House. Good reasons have always been advanced why any proposals to rush legislation through the House should not be entertained.
There are two reasons why it is important to have a breathing space in this instance. The motion relates only to clause 12, but it takes us back, in effect, to Second Reading, which took place on the general understanding that the Bill did not involve public expenditure. That was the premise on Second Reading. That was the premise when we considered each clause in Committee.


As a result of the Division earlier this morning, however, we know now that public expenditure is involved. I did not feel satisfied, and I am not now, that only clause 12 would involve public expenditure. I consider that the premise on Second Reading has been undermined. It is important, therefore, that every hon. Member should be given appropriate time to consider whether the view that he or she took on Second Reading is the view, bearing in mind what has happened this morning, that he or she will wish to take in future.
Even if hon. Members are satisfied on the generality of the Bill, what is the position of clause 12 now that we know that public expenditure is involved? Only half an hour ago, the House decided that clause 12 was different from the rest of the Bill and should be considered again. Normally, half an hour is entirely inadequate to decide whether we should vote for or against something, especially when the rules seem to have been changed.
On both counts, the normal procedures of the House matter. There should be time for all hon. Members to consider their position. Fewer than 90 Members voted this morning, and many hon. Members are not here and thus are not able to consider whether they wish to vote one way or the other. We must bear in mind the fact that every hon. Member is now involved. The vote was for the whole House to consider the Bill, rather than just a Standing Committee. Although some members of the Standing Committee are here who have had the opportunity to consider the issues and can probably contribute again, every other hon. Member now has a stake in what we are doing.
12.30 pm
All those hon. Members who are not present, who received the National Consumer Council briefing at the outset, were told in words of one syllable on page 2 of the briefing that no public expenditure was involved——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying somewhat into remarks that would have been in order on the money resolution last night. I remind him and the House that all we have to decide is whether to consider the Bill in Committee now.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That underlines the point, that no hon. Member was willing or able, or present with the necessary information, to pursue the question last night. It is vital—certainly when we discuss clause 12—that we look in detail at whether the expenditure is adequate. I willingly accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As far as I can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even within the terms of your guidance on the narrowness of the motion, we still need answers to questions. Why is the Bill so much more important than 25 other measures? Just because it has a strong pressure group and that pressure group has easy access to the television, must we give it preference over everything else? [HON. MEMBERS: "It came first in the ballot."] That was one of my earlier points. Coming first in the ballot gives an hon. Member the first chance to do something. It is a privilege and a piece of luck, and the hon. Member must get it right. The further up the ballot he is, the more right he must be on the first occasion.
It is unfair to other Back Benchers—Nos. 2 to 20 in the ballot, and all those who were not lucky enough to reach the top 20—to say that, just because one hon. Member has reached No. 1 in the ballot, the others do not matter, and

to demand a second or third go. The promoter must tell us, if we are to vote with him, why the Bill is so much more important than all the other measures that have come before the House in this Session.

Mr. Martyn Jones: It is more important because it will protect the rights of consumers, extend to them a right that they have not had before and put industry right on quality control. That is far more important than any legislation with which we have dealt in this whole Session.

Mr. Wilshire: That is a fascinating point. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friends have been saying from sedentary positions, there is an amendment to come that will undermine that.
As we have said repeatedly, no one dissents from the statement that the Bill's objectives are good. It will help people and improve competition. However, before we come to the details of that, we must be clear whether those objectives—however laudable—should be allowed to ride roughshod over the procedures of the House, the rights of Back Benchers and the rights of pressure groups, lobbyists and others with good ideas. We must have answers. Simply asserting that the Bill is better than all the others is not good enough. Why should we give it a second chance this morning at half an hour's notice?

Mr. Dykes: I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and with the similar arguments deployed by our hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) who is not in the Chamber at present, against an immediate Committee stage for clause 12. I hope that the promoter does not misunderstand my motives. I have expressed my distress that a potentially important piece of legislation has, for whatever reason, been deliberately mishandled. I am sorry to have to put it like that. Mistakes have been made. As I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I shall refrain from referring presumptuously to all the details.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has followed our proceedings in immaculate detail, as he always does. That is due to his pristine legal training some years ago. I do not suggest that he is not still a young man, but he was even younger then. That legal training led him to appreciate the importance of attention to detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was correct in a number of aspects, but I disagree with the fundamentals of his argument. He and others of my hon. Friends said that to win the ballot was precious; that even to follow each centimetre would be too wide, and that we must follow each millimetre of the process.
The Government are known for their robust attitude in a number of policy areas, and it is no apology for them to say that, by and large, they are opposed to private Members' legislation. It is wrong to suppose that Mr. Nice Guy—I do not necessarily refer to the promoter—can say that it does not matter if there are a few accidents in Committee because when the crunch comes everything will be put right in later stages of the Bill. Legislation is a complex business. We know that civil servants do not like private Members' Bills. They regard them as an impertinent intrusion into public life, where legislation is drafted rather badly by civil servants, pursued rather badly by Ministers and taken through to what we usually end up with—bad legislation which needs repealing or adjusting. That is the entrancing aspect of our system.


It is no use any promoter saying that the real world is unfair because that is how it is in the mother of Parliaments. This is a robust parliamentary assembly where people watch every point. I see you nod your assent, Madam Deputy Speaker——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I am speaking to my Clerk. I have nothing to add to what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful for that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker, which was very interesting. I am making only a short speech, but I entertain the modest hope that you will nod at one or two of my assertions if I am on the right lines. I always look to the Chair for the psychological guidance that we all seek on such occasions.
I have tabled some amendments and I would like them to be debated if there is time. I am in favour of the broad outline of the Bill, subject to a number of crucial amendments to which I hope that the Government will respond positively. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister has already hinted that they will. Therefore, we should move on to Committee stage immediately.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) worries me a little. He is universally regarded as an honourable Member of the House and he handled the Committee stage with a degree of politeness——

Mr. Richard Shepherd: And generosity.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West, handled the Committee with politeness and generosity. The Committee had three or four sittings. This may be a complex Bill, but that is still a hefty Committee stage to debate amendments and clauses. It is not as though there was just one stage and then it was noticed that there were serious flaws. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would admit that the stages prior to the painful muddle in which we now find ourselves, whatever the cause, were fair and acceptable.
The hon. Gentleman intervened a few minutes ago to suggest that the Bill was unique and that nothing else in the ballot mattered. He suggested that it was the only significant piece of legislation this Session.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I was referring to Government legislation, not to private Members' Bills.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's correction. I thought that he meant that. I wish that I had been a member of the Committee, because then I could have enjoyed his very attractive demeanour. I can understand why people are keen to see his Bill progress.

Mrs. Gorman: Is something going on here?

Mr. Dykes: When I had the good fortune to be second in the ballot some years ago—I shall not say when, as it was a long time ago—my Bill eventually became an Act. It is now known as the Dykes Act. Some people have unkindly remarked that it is a good cure for insomnia, because anyone who starts reading it is guaranteed to doze off in five minutes flat. In any event, it was a very worthy piece of legislation, and I am very proud of it. In the beginning, the then Government were hostile to my Bill, but we brought them around and they eventually

supported it. All the majesty of the Civil Service came into play in respect of the drafting—I always remember the phrase, "Lending you a spare pen." It was very helpful and I received endless advice.
There was a psychological transformation when the Administration came on to the scene, using all the impressive power available to any Government to support what I considered to be a very worthy measure. Nevertheless, I did not take the view that the Administration were obliged to provide that assistance because my Bill was a unique piece of legislation and it would be an appalling state of affairs if it did not become law. I did not take the view either that the Bills behind mine in the ballot were of no importance. It is usually said that the first six Bills to be successful in the ballot have a reasonably good chance of reaching the statute book, depending on their subject matter and proposals.
I hope that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West does not think I am giving him a condescending lecture when I say to him and to his right hon. and hon. Friends that their attitude is also important.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us who are sympathetic to the broad concepts of the Bill feel that it goes rather too wide and that they should make their concern known to the promoter? Does my hon. Friend agree also that it is sometimes necessary to compromise if a Bill is to succeed?

Mr. Dykes: Yes, my hon. Friend makes with greater eloquence the point that I tried feebly to make earlier. In textual and constructional terms the end result may look different from the Bill that one originally devised or had drafted by parliamentary agents, but that is all part of the process. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that it would be marvellous if this Parliament were mature enough to undertake the same searching examinations of Government Bills. The attitude of any Administration—I am not getting at the present one and my right hon. and hon. Friends know that I am an enthusiastic supporter of most aspects of Government policy and action—is to regard their own legislation as being beyond close scrutiny. We all go through the motions, of course, and there are times when any Government have to concede a point, but the Government really want Members of Parliament to pay only the slightest amount of attention to their proposals and then turn up for the 10 o'clock Division on Second Reading and support a Bill through all its other stages.
However, in the case of a private Member's Bill—here I have sympathy with the promoter—the Government undertake a massive search of every word and every line, and keep saying, "This clause hasn't been properly drafted." We pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for his work in trying to improve the constitutional behaviour of this House. We know of endless examples of badly drafted, inadequately thought-out clauses which later have had to be altered. They are not even part of the usual alternance, to use a French phrase, of the party battle, when a new Government repeal the previous Administration's legislation. That is one of the cruder aspects of political life, but I refer more to this House, the realities of Government attitudes, careless drafting and so on.


A promoter is entitled to say, "My Bill deserves just treatment because it is in proper order." That may be the consequence of the efforts of the Public Bill Office, which is very helpful, a parliamentary agent or draftsman, or intervention by expert Government draftsmen. At present, we are only debating an immediate Committee stage, which I favour, in respect of clause 12—the others having been dealt with. There are other amendments on other clauses and I should refer to them if it were not out of order to do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman would be out of order if he did that.

Mr. Dykes: 1 knew that you would say that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for reminding the whole House of that fact.
That is the spirit of most of the amendments and it is interesting to note that they have mostly been proposed by Conservative Members. My colleagues take a great interest in this subject. I wish that more Opposition Members had been here today to support the motion.
A number of the amendments would produce significant improvements in legal, juridical and operational aspects of the Bill. That end could have been served if the Bill had been handled correctly so far. There is still time for the Committee stage on clause 12 to take place. It need not take up much time. We could then make further progress and I am strongly in favour of that.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have seen a number of damascene conversions in the course of my membership of the House and I have watched my hon. Friends' activities with enthusiasm today. They have identified two procedural problems and they are right to do so. I do not think that any hon. Member can complain when hon. Members use procedural techniques in relation to measures that they wish to oppose, but I wish that there were a little more even-handedness. It is not unfamiliar to my memory that the Government occasionally make cock-ups, but our natural instinct is to appreciate that a measure is important and that we should therefore try to find ways to move the business of the House forward.
The question before us is whether we continue with the Bill. That is really what it is about. I judge from debates in Committee, on Second Reading and today that there is a body of my colleagues who do not like the Bill. They feel that it is fundamentally flawed. I am not trying to apportion blame or credit but to observe that that has a relevance to whether we should debate the motion now.
I have watched the Whips, with their usual vigour on a Friday morning, scurrying around to point out observations and arguments which might be of use in prolonging the debate. I have watched the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister in Committee, trying to further the argument on the procedural debate about whether the Bill should proceed. I judge from all those activities, and from the curious statement by my hon. Friend——

Mr. Bellingham: I should correct my hon. Friend on the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I assumed that he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the hon. Member for Gainsburgh and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend's eye roved further. The hon. Member was extending the role of a Parliamentary Private Secretary to give counsel to others.
When we weigh up whether it is appropriate to continue with the Bill and the amendment on the Floor of the House we should weigh the various forces that have contributed to the present position and whether it is worth supporting the motion.
I have come to the conclusion that the Minister was deeply opposed to the Bill from the beginning. He felt that it was not appropriate to make that argument about the details and areas of error straight out, but he was fundamentally opposed to the Bill. To bring it to an end, he used a technique—I make no complaint because I, too, have tried to move a Bill through the Chamber—which elicited a response less characteristic of the traditions of the House but which achieved the same object.
The Minister takes the view that the Bill must not proceed. He tried to talk it out, but the House decided, through the procedural motions in Second Reading, that the Bill should go to Committee. Then the Minister sat through Committee giving neither guidance nor help despite the extraordinary generosity and kindness of the promoter of the Bill who always wanted to know in what way he could meet the objections. The Official Report of the Committee proceedings shows that amendments were passed. The promoter of the Bill attempted to address those questions in Committee. The Minister must have been aware for some time that a money resolution would be required. I regret that I was unaware of the fact that a money resolution would be needed. The question is whether we should be discussing it now. The use of procedural devices will ensure that the Bill does not proceed today, so it is doomed.

Mr. Forth: Can my hon. Friend say what, in his judgment, led the promoter of the Bill to table amendments Nos. 133 and 134 which seek to delete the major part of his own Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the Minister go down that road, I must emphasise that the only question before the House is whether the House should resolve itself immediately into a Committee of the whole House. I hope that hon. Members will address the very narrow question that is before the House.

Mr. Shepherd: I am trying to keep within those narrow confines, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the House agreed to that motion, we should be unable to raise many matters. I do not know on what basis the Government have raised such fundamental objections to the Bill, but they have led the entire Whips Office to gee itself up and scuttle around today, which means that the Bill is doomed. However, the Government have not put forward their arguments openly. I regret that we have been unable to discover what the Government's objections are—other than the fact that people outside this place, who have not been named, fear the Bill. As they would not come up front and discuss the matter, it is fruitless to consider the Bill now. The Minister has made it clear that he does not intend to allow the Bill to pass. We should therefore not continue to discuss it but acknowledge the means by which the Minister made his point and got his way.

Mrs. Gorman: I came to the House this morning—as, I am sure, did many other hon. Members—and gave up a number of constitutional engagements in the hope that we would reach the Tax Relief for Household Employers Bill, which I introduced to the House under the ten-minute rule. Had I had any inkling that the House would spend such an inordinate amount of time on the Consumer Guarantees Bill, I should not have bothered to come. My morning could have been spent more profitably.
The Bill that I introduced has attracted a great deal of attention throughout the country. I cannot speak to it now; that would be out of order. However, the drafting of the Consumer Protection Bill must have been incompetent; as a result of which we are spending an enormous amount of time on a procedural matter.
The National Consumer Council is receiving £2 million of taxpayers' money to fund its activities, and it has persuaded the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) to promote the Bill. Surely, therefore, if it knows its job, it should have thrashed out all these points——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I dislike having to be heavy-handed when I am in the Chair, but this is a very narrow motion. All that we are debating is whether clause 12 should be immediately considered in a Committee of the whole House.

Mrs. Gorman: As one of the hon. Members whose Bill is listed for today, I am sorry about that, because it means that those of us who had attended for other purposes will be crowded out.

Mr. Bellingham: I have said that I feel strongly that the Bill should go back upstairs into Committee, so that it can be properly considered and all the important matters can be examined. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister exactly what the position will be if the House decides that the Bill should go back upstairs so that all these matters can be thrashed out. I came here this morning with a view to supporting the Bill.

Mr. Forth: My understanding is that the House has made a decision of principle to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House. The only decision that we have to take is whether we do that now or subsequently. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bellingham: It helps me enormously. Obviously there will not be time to conduct the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. Is there any possibility of a way being found to get the Bill back into Committee upstairs, as we have come across a number of serious pitfalls?

Mr. Squire: Is not the reality of what we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Minister that, if we do not debate the Bill today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will need to find another time for the whole House to debate it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a private Member's Bill; therefore, it is debated in private Members time.
The only decision we are taking now is whether we proceed with the Bill in Committee here. That is the narrow decision we are taking now.

Mr. Bellingham: I am sorry for causing a slight side track.
I came here hoping to go through some of the arguments on Report. As I have said on a number of occasions, I support many aspects of the Bill. I support it in principle as there is a great deal of good in it, but I am saddened by the complications that have been thrown up today.
It goes without saying that, had the Government found themselves in the same predicament with one of their less controversial Bills such as the Water Bill or the Bill dealing with the poll tax system, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described it the other day, Opposition Members would have been going berserk. They would have been going haywire and seizing every possible opportunity to filibuster and reprimand the Minister and his officials for not spotting that discrepancy. Opposition Members cannot complain about hon. Members such as myself, who came here this morning hoping to participate and to play a constructive part in the debate only to find total chaos and that people evidently have not done their homework.
I hope that we can find some way of proceeding constructively so that we can examine the Bill in detail with the right amount of time. If we try to rush it through this morning, we shall be issuing hostages to fortune and setting a very bad example indeed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make it quite clear to the House that our only concern this morning is whether we immediately resolve ourselves into a Committee on the Bill to debate clause 12? That is the only thing that we are discussing.

Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not also the case that the decision to commit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House has been taken, so that the only question is whether that is done now? If it is not done now, is it not the case that it will not happen at all?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I wish to oppose the motion, and take as my text the words on the flysheet of the twentieth edition of "Erskine May" which are addressed not to the current Speaker but
To The Right Honourable George Thomas, MP Speaker of the House of Commons, and to The Speakers of the Commonwealth, within whose hands the priceless heritage of Parliament is securely held".
It is strange that in the current edition of "Erskine May" those words have been changed to:
The Speakers and Officers of Commonwealth Parliaments, all of whom guard the precious heritage of Parliamentary government.
"Priceless" is much stronger than "precious".
I oppose the motion because of the word "now" and because written notice has not been given. As a result, colleagues have not had an opportunity to study the issue or come to the debate. To convince the House of my view, I have researched all such motions since 1945. I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer to what has happened in the past, but it is germane to our decision whether to approve the motion. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you do not have the 20th edition of "Erskine May". No doubt your Clerks can find you a copy.
1 pm
We can exclude two groups. There are motions, of which there were apparently many before the 1960s, to recommit a Bill at the beginning of its Report stage to a


Committee of the whole House in respect of specific amendments. Apart from the fact that that practice was discontinued in the 1960s, it does not cover this matter. The second group of recommittal motions can also be discounted as they concern the recommittal of hybrid Bills, and we are not talking about one today.
In deciding whether we should commit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House now, we should consider that written notice has not been given. I address my remarks specifically to why we should not commit the Bill because written notice has not been given. A Bill may be recommitted
to enable a new clause to be added to the bill when the House, on report, has passed the stage at which new clauses are taken.
That has happened in the past and we could proceed along those lines. New clauses are taken at the beginning of report stage before any amendments to the Bill.
Such a recommittal motion would require written notice. In the past, such a procedure has been used to recommit a Bill, but in this case no written notice has been given. Because of that, it would not be fair to rely on that purpose.
Secondly a Bill my be recommitted
to enable the committee to take advantage of an instruction from the House to make amendments which would otherwise be outside the scope of the bill.
We are not talking about amendments outside the scope of the Bill, so this does not fall into that procedure. I understand that, again, the recommittal motion would require written notice so that the House could be properly informed of the amendments. No written notice has been given.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has agreed the recommittal motion. The hon. Gentleman should stop referring to it.

Mr. Leigh: Surely we are now talking about whether the motion should take effect now. I am coming to that point.
Finally, a Bill may be recommitted
to enable the committee to reconsider amendments they had previously made.
We could perhaps use that procedure now. "Erskine May" cites the Education Bill 1970, when the Opposition defeated the Government in Standing Committee on the motion, That clause 1 stand part, thus effectively crippling the Bill. The Government moved to recommit the Bill to the same Standing Committee with a permissive instruction to the effect that it had power to put back clause 1. Once again, notice was given.
I rest my case on that. We should not allow this part of the Bill to be debated now, because no written notice has been given. I have gone through the precedents and, as far as I can tell—I am not a constitutional expert and others in the House know considerably more that I do—there is no precedent to recommit a Bill to a Committee of the whole House, which is what we have just done, or any precedent for this motion. No doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can be advised by your Clerks, but that is the worrying point.
This matter is serious because a number of other Bills have been listed for consideration after this one. As well as that I have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill. If we were to discuss the matter now it would take up a great deal of time. A large amount of public money is involved and, given that it is past 1 pm, there is virtually no chance of the Bill reaching Report Stage. If that were the case, I would have no opportunity to discuss my amendments. For those reasons, and the procedural motions I have

discussed, I believe that we should not deal with the Bill now. We should allow written notice to be given and come back to it on another Friday.

Mr. Forth: The matters that we are discussing are important, and it is right for them to deserve the attention of the House.
We are reminded this morning that the Bill obtained its Second Reading because more than 100 people were here to support it. That point was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has always been a supporter of the Bill, who voted for it on Second Reading and who participated in its Committee proceedings.
It is interesting that, this morning, on the vote on the recommittal to a Committee of the whole House, only 85 hon. Members went through the Lobby in support. Many of them must have been my hon. Friends, because there have been precious few Opposition Members present all day. It looks as though enthusiasm for the Bill is declining. As it has proceeded through its different stages, it appears that fewer people have been prepared to be present to support it. That probably reflects the level of support and interest it has commanded outside the House. If the evidence of the postbag is anything to go by, there is little support for the Bill. That has given me comfort in my less than enthusiastic support for it—again noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
We must decide whether the House should now resolve itself into a Committee to deal with the important matter of clause 12. I can appreciate why my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) believes that we should let the Bill go through now so that we can get on to more important things.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind me saying that, given the bad acoustics, it would be easier if he addressed Mr. Deputy Speaker rather than talking to me. The acoustics are so lousy that I cannot hear much of what he is saying.

Mr. Forth: What a pity that we can no longer look at the colleague to whom we are addressing our remarks. I am conscious of what my hon. Friend has said, so, if he will forgive me, I shall talk out of my right ear so to speak in the hope that he can follow my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate asked why we could not let the Bill go through now. However, problems associated with the late appearance of the money resolution, referred to earlier, as well as problems associated with clause 12, must be considered. We must consider whether to go into Committee now so that we can address those matters, especially as we have yet to consider the money resolution in any detail given that it received its formal approval last night.
We must decide whether we are able now to deal with the money resolution and everything that flows from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has already asked whether other hon. Members could now participate in a Committee of the whole House. Do they know that that is about to happen?
Apart from anything else, we do not have a Treasury Minister present, but we may well want such a Minister to advise us on the implications of the money resolution. I could do my best on behalf of the Government, but I am


not completely confident of dealing with all the matters that might arise as a result of that money resolution in the absence of a colleague from the Treasury.

Mr. Martyn Jones: If the normal procedures had applied, the money resolution would have been considered after Second Reading, and the Bill would then have been considered in Committee. As a member of that Committee, the Minister would have taken advice from a Treasury Minister and brought it to the attention of the House. I should have thought that the Under-Secretary of State would anticipate this circumstance, as he tabled the motion last night, which was passed nem. con. The Government had an opportunity then to vote, in effect against the Bill, but they did not. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would now have the advice from his Treasury colleague and could make those points to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. I remind him that the money resolution was laid before the House in the name of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as is right and proper in these circumstances. I made sure that I was here on the Treasury Bench last night, as was my duty, to see that money resolution safely through the House in order to give a fair wind to the Bill and to ensure at least that it would not be an obstruction and prevent consideration of the Bill proceeding.
We have agreed the recommittal, but have not yet decided whether it should take place now. Given the comments by my hon. Friends, that point is worth considering, if only because of what would happen to the Bill were we not to consider it in Committee now. I think that we are clear in our minds about that and no doubt you will guide us if we are not, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I understand it, if we decided not to proceed now, the Bill would go back into the private Members' Bills queue and, if time were available, would be considered in Committee. I am not sure whether that gives the Bill peculiar difficulties, but I think that some of my hon. Friends have that approach in mind. If we followed it, it would give everyone time perhaps to consider the implications of the money resolution and look again at clause 12 and perhaps even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) suggested, give the Bill's promoter time to look at his Bill again, consider its state and all the difficulties connected with the limited time available to private Members' Bills.
I hope that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) will speak after me to advise the House what should happen. We presume that he wants to go ahead now with the Bill, but he has not told us the strength of his feeling on the matter or why it should go ahead. Given the importance of clause 12 to the Bill, it is appropriate to consider it seriously.
I remind the House that clause 12 states:
The following provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and section 25 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, shall apply in relation to the enforcement of this Act, and in relation to offences under this Act or under any regulations under this Act, as they apply in relation to the enforcement of, and in relation to offences under that Act".
The clause raises important points, as I think the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West would agree. It means

that trading departments and officers would be responsible for enforcing the Bill's provisions, unless the House subsequently passed the hon. Gentleman's amendment to delete this part of the Bill—a mystery that we have not yet resolved. At this late hour, we are still waiting for it to be resolved. I have invited the hon. Gentleman to explain, but he has not yet done so.
I hope that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make it clear to us why he thinks that it is important to deal with this matter now rather than subsequently, whether he thinks that hon. Members have sufficient evidence with which to deal with this complicated matter and whether it might be advisable for me to seek further advice from my Treasury colleagues on the detailed provisions of the money resolution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us all that guidance.
This is an important matter and my hon. Friends have made clear their concerns. Although it may well be appropriate for us to deal with this point now, unless the Bill's promoter answers our questions, we shall find it difficult to make a determination. I sense that some hon. Members feel that it would probably be inappropriate to give the Bill further detailed consideration now. On the other hand, some hon. Members feel that that would be appropriate. I shall await the remarks of the promoter of the Bill before deciding whether to support the motion.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I think that we should resolve ourselves into a Committee immediately. In any case, the House cannot do much more business today, and I understand that the Minister responsible for the next Bill is not here.
The Minister's second question was about my amendments numbers 133 and 134, and I should be out of order if I sought to discuss them now. He will find out the answers if he joins us in voting for the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 0.

Division No. 151]
[1.16 pm


AYES


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)"
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Haynes, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Heffer, Eric S.


Boateng, Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carrington, Matthew
Illsley, Eric


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clay, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Conway, Derek
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cummings, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Norris, Steve


Dixon, Don
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Durant, Tony
Patchett, Terry


Dykes, Hugh
Pendry, Tom


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L.


Fisher, Mark
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fookes, Dame Janet
Rathbone, Tim


Fraser, John
Richardson, Jo


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rowlands, Ted


Gordon, Mildred
Ruddock, Joan


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Shersby, Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter






Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Waller, Gary


Smith, C. (Islton &amp; F'bury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Soley, Clive
Wells, Bowen


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Squire, Robin
Wilshire, David


Strang, Gavin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Straw, Jack



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. John Gale, and


Trotter, Neville
Dr. John Marek.


Viggers, Peter





NOES


Nil


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Edward Leigh and



Mr. John Marshall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clause 12

ENFORCEMENT, DEFENCES, ETC.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I ask you to clarify which clause 12 we are considering. It seems from what I heard this morning that the consideration and amendment of the original clause 12 in Standing Committee was out of order because the appropriate formalities had not been completed. Are we considering the original clause 12 or the amended clause 12?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): We are considering clause 12 in the recommitted Bill, which was amended in Standing Committee C. It is clause 12, at line 25 on page 7. I hope that all hon. Members understand that.

Mr. Squire: I am pleased that you gave that ruling, Miss Boothroyd, otherwise the time that I spent in preparation might have proved to be wasted.
When I spoke earlier today I declared what was probably an irrelevant financial interest. I declare now a non-pecuniary but relevant interest, which is that I have the honour of being one of the vice-presidents of the Institution of Environmental Health. As a glance at clause 12 will show, that esteemed body will be responsible for administering, at council level, the duties that the Bill imposes, and especially those set out in clause 12.
Like other hon. Members, I raced for a copy of the report of the proceedings in Standing Committee to digest what was said on clause 12. It would be fair to say that it was something less than a satisfactory meal. It seems that the debate lasted for about 30 seconds, and that that time was spent applying the clause to Northern Ireland. I find today that there are amendments to delete Northern Ireland, so perhaps the Standing Committee proceedings were unnecessary.
The clause is concerned with the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and its application to the Bill. I have a few questions and comments to put to my hon. Friend the Minster or to the promoter, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), whoever is the appropriate person to respond to them.
The apparent effect of the clause is that trading standards authorities would be under a statutory duty to enforce the provisions of the Bill by reason of the

application of section 27 in part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. I stress that: I shall return to the words "statutory duty". I would appreciate some assistance from my hon. Friend the Minister, but it seems that the Secretary of State, who is included in the definition of an enforcement authority in section 45(1) of the Act, would have enforcement powers, but not a duty to enforce.
1.30 pm
Will the Minister give us an idea of how he expects the Secretary of State to exercise what, on the face of it, is a discretion rather than a duty? I hope that hon. Members perceive the distinction. We can all see how duties can be exercised and can be set out; Secretaries of State are clearly answerable under a number of Acts. When powers but not duties are laid down, however, a Minister may presumably choose to ignore a vote in the House and say, "I personally have no wish to exercise those powers, and I will not exercise them."
The power of enforcement appears to be exercisable in relation to the Bill generally, but the Bill creates civil rights and obligations. For instance, clause 8, which deals with the enforceability of guarantees, obviously does not deal with a criminal offence. The Bill therefore covers both civil rights and criminal offences. Surely it is not appropriate for trading standards authorities to seek to enforce civil rights: that would introduce a whole new concept into law. Is the intention for the authorities to limit their enforcement activities to possible criminal offences? That is the logical interpretation, but it is not how the Bill is currently drafted.
Let us assume that that is the intention. It is unclear to what extent—if at all—some of the provisions of part IV of the 1987 Act would be applied for the purpose of enforcing the criminal provisions in the Bill. There are two reasons for my uncertainty. First, many of the provisions apply only for the purpose of enforcing specific parts of the 1987 Act. That is not unusual: often legislation contains unique aspects specifically designed to ensure that it works properly. Is it intended that the provisions of the Bill should be included in all the references to those specific parts?
Secondly, many of the enforcement proceedings in part IV of the Act—for example, the power of customs officers to seize and detain imported goods in section 31—are inherently unsuitable for use in enforcing the provisions of the Bill. There are other provisions that cannot be applied without modification; I shall not go into the details, but that requires careful thought. Examples are sections 29(2), (3), (6) and (7). None of the provisions in part V of the Act is applied. A provision restricting the disclosure of information on the lines of section 38 would also be needed. Those points are important, but, for reasons at which I can only guess—as I was not a member of the Standing Committee—the Committee did not discuss them. A provision concerning the service of documents, on the lines of section 44 of the Act, would presumably also be needed.
So far I have concentrated on what I consider to be the defects in the clause as it is currently drafted. As we are already in Committee and have had relatively little opportunity to table amendments, we must either ask for a response from the Minister or hope for amendments to be tabled in the other place.
We must be clear about the Minister's response. It is fairly standard practice—every hon. Member has


encountered it in Committee—for a Minister to say, "I accept the principle," or "I accept the need for change, but the wording is not right,"—or a variation on that—and promise to table amendments later. Clearly my hon. Friend will not have the opportunity to table amendments today, but I press him strongly to accept my concerns if he considers them valid, and to instruct those in another place to table the appropriate amendments.
Clause 12 is arguably one of the most important clauses because it deals with enforcement. Even with the best of intentions, if there is no enforcement the Bill will fail in its aims. Of course, we are here primarily to discuss the money aspect and the impact of the clause on local authorities and environmental health officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to the impact on the community charge because a statutory duty is being placed on local authorities. It is not an option; it is a statutory duty. When the Committee discussed clause 12 in February, it was before the surge of correspondence on the community charge. Regardless of hon. Members' views about the community charge——

Mr. Ron Davies: The poll tax.

Mr. Squire: Indeed, some call it the poll tax. I have been rather more outspoken than some, but no one can deny that there has been a surge of interest, almost an obsession among the public about the size of their community charge bills compared with those of other people. The provisions of clause 12 will directly increase the amount of community charge. I cannot speak for other hon. Members, but I have not yet received any letters saying, "Please make the community charge higher." Some people have used rather stronger language than that, but they certainly did not suggest that it should be increased. Indeed, they strongly suggested that it should be lower.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister or the Bill's promoter can explain the impact of clause 12 on staffing levels. That matter was not debated in Committee, but as it imposes a statutory duty it is important to know the consequences. On Second Reading, the promoter, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West—whom I congratulate on his manner—said that each year
14 million people are dissatisfied with products 2026;"—
presumably those figures came from the National Consumer Council—
and only half will have their problems resolved."—[Official Report, 26 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 1174.]
That means that 7 million people are dissatisfied.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend really believe that there are 7 million complaints each year? Is it a genuine figure or is it made up, having been extrapolated from a much smaller number by virtue of the number of people in the population? I cannot think of an organisation that could handle that number of complaints.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend puts me on the spot. I am taking in good faith what the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West said on Second Reading. I cannot account for his figures, but I am sure that when he speaks he will give the points of reference that my hon. Friend rightly seeks to establish.
I have no idea how many of those 7 million dissatisfied people would take the matter further and complain to trading standards officers or what action would then follow. Let us suppose that 10 per cent. of complainants are so upset that they pursue matters with their local

environmental health officers. One is then talking of 700,000 new cases each year—I can answer my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to that extent—involving a statutory duty to act. Environmental health officers will have no option but to attend to those complaints. They cannot say, "We would like to do so, but those complaints are not a matter of priority."
There are 400 local authorities in this country, and right hon. and hon. Members can calculate for themselves the extra work load that will be placed on members of the institution of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. I calculate that each local authority will have to deal with an additional 1,500 cases per year, with major implications not only for the Consolidated Fund but for local authorities, and therefore for the community charges that they make.
I do not know what priority local authorities would give to such complaints. I confess that I have not spoken to the institution in that respect, so the following are my views alone. If one considers three of the important duties of environmental health officers, one's concern begins to increase. EHOs are required, for example, to certify whether a house is in such a bad state of disrepair that no one should be expected to live in it. That is a critical responsibility, and I should not want to see anything else take precedence over it. EHOs are also called upon to deal with complaints about excessive noise, and with the whole subject of food safety and public health—which the public acknowledge as a proper responsibility of local authorities and of the members of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers who undertake it. How are EHOs expected to cope with all that work and investigate an additional 1,500 cases—and that may be an underestimate—per year? I know from my involvement in the institution and from my previous political life as a local councillor that there remains a significant national shortage of properly qualified personnel to fill the role of environmental health officers.
If politics is about priorities, we must ask ourselves whether it is right to place the new responsibilities introduced by clause 12 on people who are becoming more important by the month. I spend a great deal of time travelling around the country to give talks on environmental issues. The points that I have made are brought to my attention time and again by the public. It is seldom that people complain to me as dissatisfied customers. The number who do so is tiny by comparison with those who say, "Please do something to reduce the hellish noise that I have to suffer in my flat," or ask, "Are the products that we eat or drink safe?"
I want answers from my hon. Friend the Minister on the questions that I asked earlier, and a response from the Bill's promoter on the points that I put to him. If their responses satisfy me, I am prepared to move on, to debate the other amendments to which I referred.

Mr. Wilshire: I am relieved that the procedural matters are behind us, so that we can turn at last to a Bill, the objectives and principles of which have had the support of people right across the political spectrum from the very beginning. I hope that we may now make progress.
We must sort out three things in our minds. First, we must take account of the fact that this is a Committee of the whole House. Therefore, for the benefit of those not party to our earlier deliberations we must clarify exactly what clause 12 seeks to do. Secondly, at no stage during


the deliberations of the Standing Committee did we give any thought to public expenditure in the context of the objectives of the Bill. Having let procedural matters go through so rapidly, it would be improper to allow what appears to be £1 million to go through without careful scrutiny. Thirdly, we must ask ourselves whether, as a Committee of the whole House, we are justified to try to put right at the 11th hour matters that there has been plenty of time to put right before now.
First, we should be clear about the exact meaning of clause 12. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Squire) said earlier, it will give trading standards authorities a new statutory duty. My hon. Friend was talking about opportunity to do things, but in this context we are talking about a duty that will be required of those authorities and if they are in dereliction of that duty the public will have a right to require action to be taken. Little discretion is involved. If we go down that track, as sure as day follows night, public expenditue will be incurred. It is crucial to understand the powers that we are giving to those authorities.
1.45 am
Section 39 of the Act concerns the all reasonable steps defence. That is right and proper and I do not quarrel with it. If one is hauled up before a trading standards authority it is proper to say, "I did my best." Section 40 says that if the law is broken one can take action against a second person as well as the principal person involved. I also think that that is a sensible technicality. Before dealing with technicalities of that sort, however, we must return to the principle which is at stake in clause 12.
I can identify the following principles. Given all the debate about local government at the moment, should we be giving local government, via clause 12, yet another job, whether funded or not?

Mr. Ron Davies: rose——

Mr. Wilshire: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davies: I do not wish to intervene.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member was too generous in giving way.

Mr. Wilshire: I am known throughout the House for my generosity, and I willingly give way to Labour Whips as well as to Whips on my own side if they wish to break their silence.
If I can gather my wits rather than my Whips about me, should we be giving local government yet another job when we are not sure where the money is to come from? Secondly, are the trading standards authorities the right enforcers for this? My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch touched on that and I will develop the argument in a moment. Thirdly, has the trading standards authority been consulted? I will explain in a moment why I ask that question.
Is it right for the House to give local government yet another job? Before I came to the House, I spent 11 years as a councillor in local government. That experience has made me wary of what appears to be a habit of all Governments of whatever persuasion, and the promoter of the Bill is falling prey to the same dangerous habit. Time and again, they decide that something is a good idea, approve the principle, shunt it off to local government and blame local government if it goes wrong. That concerns me

greatly. Local government is already in difficulty as a result of the tasks given to it. Many local authorities have difficulty repairing houses within a reasonable period. Shoving yet another task on to them means that they will not be able to tackle fundamental problems.
There is great debate about overspending by local authorities and it is undeniable that many local authorities are unjustifiably spending far too much money. For different reasons, all parties are critical of local government expenditure and the question is being examined by people of all political persuasions. It is therefore essential to ask whether we should add to local authorities' expenditure in this way.
It is also necessary to consider whether the trading standards authorities ought to enforce the provisions of the Bill. I served on a county council and a public protection committee. Trading standards officers of great quality, ability and enthusiasm have been involved in the enforcement of the criminal law. Parliament specifies the penalties. Trading standards officers have the role of policemen in local government and enforce the criminal law. If they are given the powers provided in the Bill, we shall for the first time be turning then into enforcers of civil rights. That would be very dangerous. It would muddle their role of enforcing the criminal law with the enforcement of civil rights and local government would be given a role for which it is not well suited.
What are trading standards authorities to do if they are given the dual role of enforcing both the criminal law and civil rights? Are they to take the view that their true role is to deal with the criminal law, ignore the civil rights bit and all will be well? If so they would overlook the point that I made earlier—that they will have a statutory duty to enforce everything, not just to enforce the bits that they think appropriate while ignoring all the others. We should be setting a dangerous precedent if we provided local government officers with such powers.
We must also inquire into whether the trading standards authorities have been consulted. I should not have bothered to raise the matter, but for something that came to light in Committee. We were told by the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers Association that it was not consulted about the Bill, yet that association represents some of the leading high street names in terms of manufacturers of radio and electronic equipment. BREEMA wrote to the National Consumer Council on 8 November:
The Members expressed surprise that the Association was not consulted during the preparation of the report as their goods are specifically mentioned and they would have been able to offer useful and practical advice, since it is clearly both in their interests and in the interests of the public to have a scheme which is a workable proposition.
That was an example that we heard of in Committee of an interested party not being consulted.
We must therefore find out whether the trading standards authorities have been consulted and, if so, whether they are worried about civil rights, whether they believe that they will be able to enforce everything in the Bill or whether they believe that only certain powers should be given to them. I should like some answers. We have to consider which parts could be enforced. I am not a lawyer, but I have some more questions about the detail of part IV. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister is a lawyer or whether he could get some legal advice, but my hon. Friend the Minister, the promoter of the Bill or someone else might like to intervene to explain


whether the whole of part IV, which we are seeking to include, is suitable for the Bill. Is it applicable to the objectives of the Bill and is it enforceable by trading standard authorities? I am not a lawyer, but I gather that there are some doubts about whether the whole of part IV is suitable, applicable or enforceable. Before we vote on the clause, we should consult somebody who can clarify whether that is the case.
Bearing in mind that I have still not heard an answer all these hours later as to whether it is only clause 12 of the Bill which requires a money resolution, can somebody please tell me whether part IV is the only part that is relevant or are we going to find at some subsequent date that parts of other Acts should have been brought in? As there has been so much confusion in the past we need that to be cleared up. Because we have a money resolution and because, contrary to what we were told at the outset, we now know that public expenditure is involved, we have to discuss that. It is wholly irresponsible for us to wave aside money in the hope of getting a measure on to the statute book because its objectives are laudable.

Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Committee had met when things were as lively as they seem to be at the moment every right hon. and hon. Member on the Committee would have known about the high profile of the community charge or poll tax, and had they known that the money resolution was necessary they would have given clause 12 much greater attention than we have given it today?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. Will you confirm that the right time for hon. Members to discuss the money resolution was last night when it went through without any debate? Is this not another example of the way in which hon. Members have deliberately set out to filibuster by not taking things at the right time?

The Second Deputy Chairman: There is some reason to refer to it on clause 12.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for that, Miss Boothroyd, as it is fundamental that we consider the question of expenditure.

Mr. Bennett: Why did the hon. Member not speak against it last night?

Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman would not try to shout me down, he would get an answer—if he wants an answer rather than having a closed mind, having made his point.
As we have now been told that the clause has financial implications, it is essential that we discuss it. When we considered the Bill in Standing Committee we were told on good authority by the sponsors of the Bill and the people who drafted it that there were no public expenditure requirements. Our discussion in Committee was based on the fact that no part of the Bill involved public expenditure, so I certainly make no apology for saying that last night and this morning the rules have been changed by the House and now that we are in Committee we have to consider whether we should pursue the matter given its financial implications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch asked me whether I would care to speculate on the views of other hon. Members, and I would not. If my hon. Friend checks my track record over the years in local government and here, he will know that I consider that every time that there has been any suggestion of the expenditure of public money it is critical that we examine it. I make no apology for that because one of the reasons why we get ourselves into a mess in the town halls and in Parliament is that we do not think hard enough about whether expenditure is justified and whether we have the money to spend in the first place. We must consider public expenditure.
The Minister moved the money resolution last night, so perhaps he can tell me how the sum of £1 million was reached. During my 11 years in local government I became cynical about figures put to me with comments such as, "It's not much", "It really doesn't matter", "We don't mind, do we?" and "It will be all right in the end". As sure as eggs were eggs, in the final accounts for the year the figure was not the same figure or even double—usually it was out of sight because nobody had asked the relevant questions in the first place.

2 pm

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty for anybody at this stage of estimating the size of an appropriate money resolution because we have not finally formed the Bill. At best it can be only an estimate for the good reason that he gave in Committee—he may want to return to some of these issues—that the details of the substantive clauses and the way in which the Bill may be operated would have a direct effect on the burden on trading standards departments and thus on the size of the money resolution. It is not unreasonable that a best estimate was made. I hope that my hon. Friend will give that some thought and, if I may say so, be a little more charitable and not press the point about the £1 million.

Mr. Wilshire: I certainly accept the integrity of those who tried to work out the figure. My experience suggests that sometimes the sum turns out to be greater. We are considering this in good faith, but has the advice of the would-be enforcing authorities been sought? Does the trading standards authority agree that £1 million is a reasonable sum?
Are we justified in trying to put these matters right? We already know that when we reach Report amendments Nos. 133 and 134 are tabled to remove clause 12. In other words, we are being asked now to include clause 12 and to agree public expenditure, when we shall shortly be asked to remove it again. What are we doing? What sort of side show are we running when we start doing strange things like that?
This business of putting the clause in, taking it out and putting it back in again highlights what plagued the Standing Committee stage of the Bill from the beginning. We tried to deal with sloppy drafting and sloppy procedure. This morning we have again been asked to bale out the Bill. So far, we have decided that we should do so, but I still have my doubts. It is probably more sensible to reject clause 12 now and make it crystal clear that no Committee, whether a Standing Committee or a Committee of the whole House, is prepared to have served up to it matters that have not been thought through. No Committee should be expected in one morning to say, "All is forgiven, we shall put it right."


Before we go any further we must be clear about important matters of principle. Should we give local government another job? Are the trading standards authorities the right people and have they been consulted? Is using part IV of another Act suitable? Is it applicable to what we are trying to do? Is it the only relevant part of other Acts that we need to consider?
We need to explore the financial issues more thoroughly than we have done. We have heard the Minister's view on whether £1 million is the right sum. We have not yet discussed whether, if £1 million is available and we are prepared to go along this track, this is the best use of that money. I should like to come back to that, if there is an opportunity. There are so many demands on extra money in local government that before we say, "OK—more money to this cause," should we not look at the other demands being placed on local government?
The other issue of finance yet to be mentioned—perhaps the Minister would care to comment on it—is who will provide the extra money. Will central Government put up that £1 million and spread it about? What about Government policy? Do we agree that we should be bearing down on public expenditure? If central Government are not to provide the money, one is bound to ask who will. If the money is to be provided by the local charge payer we are back to the debate about whether community charges should be as high as they are or lower.
Although this is a late hour in our proceedings, there are fundamental questions which must be answered before it would strike me as sensible to allow clause 12 to stand part.

Mr. Forth: It might be appropriate and helpful to the Committee if I tried to give some answers to the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). In doing so I shall give some of the background to the money resolution, which has been mentioned and criticised in certain respects.
Clause 12 provides that part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which gives the basis for enforcement, is to apply in relation to the enforcement of the Bill. The application of part IV of the 1987 Act requires the expenditure of money for a variety of purposes. That is why the money resolution has been tabled. I shall not take the Committee back to the long debate that we had earlier this morning about the resolution.

Mr. Ron Davies: This is about the third time the Minister has spoken today. He would command much more respect from the Opposition if he made it abundantly clear that his objective is not to try to sort out the procedural irregularities identified, but to kill the Bill. That is what he is doing. If that is what he intended from the outset, why on earth did he not have the integrity to come to the House on Second Reading to ensure that the Government, who apparently oppose the Bill, brought in their troops to vote it out? He is doing himself no good by carrying on as he is.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice as to how I should present my public image—presumably he is an expert in such matters. If I want to enrol with his charm school I shall ask him if I might, but, in the meantime, I am entitled to give my explanation to the Committee in response to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: This is a filibuster.

Mr. Forth: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister accepts that he spent a lot of time this morning orchestrating his hon. Friends to talk on the procedural motions so that we did not get to the merits of the Bill. It is rather odd that a Government who could guillotine the Social Security Bill could also double the amount of time available to debate the procedural motion before us today. Does the Minister want the Bill or not?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is right that I spent a lot of time this morning discussing this matter, unlike him. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman should come floating in here after 2 pm when we have been here since 9.30 am giving serious and careful consideration to some difficult procedural, substantive matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his case and perhaps cool his temper a little. He should think more carefully before he intervenes again, but I am always happy to give way to him as that helps me enormously.
We were talking about the money resolution and the way in which it underpins the Bill. Earlier we made reference to the fact that the Government and I have used our best endeavours to assist the promoter to reach at least this stage in our proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked several questions and I shall go through them as quickly as I can. The enforcement provisions of the Bill put a duty on the weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and the district councils in Northern Ireland. We shall return to Northern Ireland later as an amendment deals with it. That would follow from the application of section 27 in part IV of the Consumer Protection Act. Such a duty would include, except in the case of weights and measures authorities in Scotland, where appropriate, bringing criminal proceedings for offences under the Bill.
Enforcement authorities would have various powers—for example, to make test purchases and carry out searches—as a result of the application of part IV of the Consumer Protection Act. An enforcement authority includes the Secretary of State and any other Minister of the Crown in charge of a Government Department and any such Department, as well as weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and district councils in Northern Ireland. Money may be spent by enforcement authorities in the exercise of those powers. There is, therefore, a role for the Secretary of State in that respect.
The application of section 34 in part IV of the Consumer Protection Act means that an enforcement authority would be liable to pay compensation in certain circumstances in respect of the seizure and detention of goods. Money would be required to meet any such liability. I do not wish to go into tedious detail, but those points begin to illustrate the powers of local authorities, trading standards departments and the Secretary of State and the necessity, where appropriate, to pay compensation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked the reasonable question: at this stage in our deliberations, how do we estimate the costs? I cannot give a definive answer. I suggested earlier that one could make only a best estimate, given our experience in these matters. I can say no more than that the figure in the money resolution is.


appropriate. This complicated Bill introduces major new duties, powers and responsibilities. We are therefore entitled to be a little wary of the money resolution.
The further payments provided by Parliament under the money resolution encompass

"(i) any expenses incurred or compensation payable by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the application by the Act, in relation to its enforcement, of Part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in consequence of such application in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.
This is necessary to deal with the situation that would arise as a result of the application of section 35 in part IV of the Consumer Protection Act, under which an enforcement authority may, in certain circumstances, recover the expenses of enforcement. If it does so, the money recovered is required to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. No one has yet touched on that rather interesting provision, but we may want to return to it if we give the Bill greater scrutiny.
I have tried to set out in simple terms the basis on which the Committee may want to proceed in considering the relationship between clause 12 and the money resolution. I hope that I have helped the Committee. If other matters arise, I may seek to catch your eye again, Miss Boothroyd.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Ordered,
That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: Amendments to Clauses, Amendments to Schedules and New Clauses.—[Mr. Martyn Jones.]

Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 133 in page 1, leave out from line 5 to line 10 on page 10.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 134, in page 15, leave out from line 2 to line 20.
The amendments would delete all the consumer guarantee provisions of the Bill, leaving only the Law Commission's proposals on the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I have tabled them with considerable regret but, faced with insuperable opposition and deliberate blocking tactics, I felt that there was no alternative. I see no point in hearing the Bill talked out in such artificially engineered circumstances. Most of the other amendments have been drafted by the Government or the Department, and the message must be clear: it is not that what I sought to achieve cannot be done; it is that the Government do not want it to be done.
The Minister's assurances that he will look again at guarantees will be examined for action at an early date. It is as if the Minister is deliberately snubbing his predecessor, Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes who instigated the review that led to the Bill. It appears that he is snubbing the National Consumer Council a body whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State. It is as if he is snubbing the numerous Conservative Members who have given me much welcome and strong support and

disregarding the views of many of his hon. Friends. I am afraid that he is also snubbing the House. He did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading—indeed, no hon. Member voted against the principle of the Bill. He neither moved nor supported a single amendment in Committee and he has tabled not one amendment for debate today. That is either because those amendments in the names of other Conservative Members emanate from his Department or because his Department is indolent. The title, "The Department of Indolence" would suit the Department better than its present title "The Department for enterprise".
The Department sets the examples for business that the Government want to set. Nothing could be clearer than its failure to support the Bikwhich would provide a voluntary guarantee—a statement made by business about the quality of its protect, which would encourage competition and benefit business as well as the consumer.
What is left in the Bill—the implementation of the Law Commission's proposals—has some value, especially to Scotland. For the rest, the people of this country will simply have to put up with shoddy goods and lousy service for another 18 months or so. Then this Bill—or, rather a similar Bill—will be re-introduced, becathc a Labour Government will be strong on substance, not on form, and strong on rights, not on words.

Mr. Squire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are we discussing only amendments Nos. 133 and 134, or are we discussing all the amendments?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): We are discussing amendment No. 133 with amendment No. 134.

Mr. Squire: And all associated amendments?

Madam Deputy Speaker: And the associated amendments, yes.

Mr. Viggers: This is rather confusing. The promoter of the Bill said that he was moving amendment No. 133 but we are actually discussing new clauses 1 to 3, amendments No. 133 and 134, all other amendments to parts Ito IV of the Bill, all amendments to clauses 16 to 23, except for amendment No. 4, and all amendments to schedules 1 to 4. As I understand it, that is the selection. That means that we are discussing the whole range of the first batch of amendments as selected by Mr. Speaker, which covers the whole Bill.
I regret the situation in which we find ourselves. I made my position absolutely clear at the very beginning on 26 January, when I was the first person to intervene in the speech of the promoter of the Bill to point out that I thought that he was being over-ambitious and that schedule 2 was too widely drafted. I drew his attention to the fact that serious concern had been expressed by a number of people who felt that as the schedule was so widely drafted, it would catch areas for which there had not been proper consultation, and damage would be caused. On 26 January, I made my position clear.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Viggers: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is probably the world's greatest expert at wrecking private Members' Bills.

Mr. Bennett: I make no apology for the fact that on occasions I filibuster in the House, but I always make clear what I am trying to do. I object to Conservative Members claiming that they are in favour of a Bill while busily trying to talk it out. It seems that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who have been filibustering have achieved what they wanted: my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) has tabled amendments that would delete most of the Bill. Surely the kind thing to do would be to sit down and let us have a vote. The hon. Gentleman is speaking in support of what the promoter is being forced to do by these filibustering tactics. The hon. Gentleman has go what he wants, and it shows ill grace to destroy the Bill. He will not even allow the last bit of the Bill to be put to the vote.

Mr. Viggers: I am not normally regarded as someone who takes more time than is necessary to make a speech. I spoke for only nine minutes this morning. The hon. Gentleman asks me to explain my position. On the basis of my study of the Bill, I would have been content to see it proceed, provided it contained my amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80, which reduce the scope of appendix 2, and amendments Nos. 72 and 73, which deal with the powers of the Secretary of State to extend appendix 2. However, on further study of the Bill, I realised how wide-ranging it would be and how seriously it would affect existing trading arrangements.
During the debate on clause 12, we talked about the cost of the Bill to the taxpayer. It has been said that the Government are good at providing obligations but not very good at providing the resources to meet them. I should like to expand on obligations elsewhere, but, in order to make progress 1 shall not do that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 134, in page 15, leave out from line 2 to line 20.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Forth: We have now arrived at the stage at which I had hoped we would arrive, and that gives me some cause for encouragement. We have given careful thought to the Bill, not only on Second Reading and in Committee but during today's debate. We have been in and out of Committee today, which is an unusual procedure, and with the co-operation of the promoter of the Bill and other hon. Members, we now have a Bill that I can recommend to the House.
I shall explain briefly why that is the case. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Opposition Members have asked about my position. I hope that the Bill's promoter will agree that I have always made my position and that of my Department and the Government quite clear.

Dr. Marek: Rubbish.

Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will have a quiet word with the promoter, who I am sure will confirm what I am about to say. The hon. Member for Clwyd South-West (Mr. Jones) came to see me at the outset and asked me about my attitude to the Bill. I said that I could not support it in the form in which he brought it to me. We have discussed the part of the Bill

which is now before the House, and as a result of deleting parts I to IV, the Bill now consists only of part V. I recommend it to the House.
I told the Bill's promoter that it would be good for consumers if he could see fit to promote such a Bill. Subsequently, there have been other consultations and conversations between me and the promoter and representatives of the National Consumer Council. Those consultations took place at all stages of the Bill, when thought was being given to what sort of Bill the Government could support. Opposition Members have taxed me on this matter again and again. I have always made it clear that the Government had serious reservations about parts I to IV. The reasons for that related to the principle and, even more important, to the practice. On more than one occasion—I think on Second Reading and in Committee—I said that the Bill was irredeemable and unworkable in the form in which it existed. I should say—I hope that I am not divulging any great confidences of Government or relations between Ministers and officials——

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend has returned to a point that he made some time ago. It is that the Bill, as it stood, was unworkable. Does he agree that with the change that has been made, it is eminently workable and eminently sensible? Does not that prove that those of us who have had to receive a huge amount of criticism and attack for wasting time have been vindicated for having fought throughout for the objectives of better service, better products and better competition? Have not we been proved to be right and to be the people who really care? Does my hon. Friend agree that common sense has finally broken through?

Mr. Forth: I should not want to go down that road with my hon. Friend.
I welcome the co-operative spirit of the promoter, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). I believe that if he supports the Third Reading of the Bill, as I urge my hon. Friends to do, we shall have a Bill in the name of the hon. Gentleman that will do a great deal for consumers and advance consumer law considerably. I beg my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to support the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). His stalwart efforts have done more than any of those expended by others in recent times to highlight the problems that consumers are facing. He gave consumers some considerable hope. It is a tragedy that we are left only with part V. I know that it was not his wish—it was certainly not the wish of the Labour party—that we should be left only with that. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the support they have given my hon. Friend and the Bill, and I know that they will be equally disappointed.
I have with me a file which contains more than 100 letters, many of which provoke considerable soul-searching. I am sure that the Minister would agree with me if he were to read them. The file contains letters from disabled people who cannot obtain suitable replacements for the new goods which they bought. The Bill in its entirety would have entitled them to justice in the first year


—to a replacement if the product was out of commission for two or four days, depending on significance, and to a replacement if it was out of action for more than 21 days.
It is terrible that neither the Minister nor the Government could accept those modest provisions. It is sad that they have done so much damage to consumer affairs by not accepting the Bill in its entirety. They could find it in their hearts only to accept a small part of the Bill. I welcome the small part that has been accepted. The next Labour Government will seek to introduce provisions to cover the original Bill.

Mr. Martyn Jones: As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, the Bill before us is not the one that I hoped to see. I hoped that the many consumers who suffer from shoddy goods, including Friday afternoon motor cars and tea-break washing machines, would have some protection, some guarantee in law. I regarded that as necessary to improve product control in British industry. I sought to set out in legislation the facts of a guarantee, the sort of guarantee that consumers would like to have for refunds or replacements. The Minister has said that he will continue to examine guarantees, and I hope that he will do so. I shall continue to press for that examination and for legislation. I believe that we shall see relevant legislation at the Minister's behest, at that of the European Community or as a result of the action of the next Government, which will be a Labour Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Raoul Wallenberg saved the lives of more than 100,000 Hungarian Jews. Last year, I tried to secure honorary British citizenship for him. I feel that the least that the House can do is to approve the Second Reading of my Bill, whose aim is to erect a monument to a man who saved so many lives.
It is 45 years since the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg; probably the only person who knows what happened to him is Andrei Gromyko. He has been honoured by countries throughout the world. Surely the least that we, the British people, can do is agree to this brief, simple Bill.

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — Private Members' Bills

PERFORMING ANIMALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Bill not printed. Second Reading what day? No day named.

ADOPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.

RAPE IN MARRIAGE (OFFENCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member—such as myself—to name the objector as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), the Government Whip, and thus put his name on the record?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

MOTOR TRADE (CONSUMER PROTECTION) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

NEWLY QUALIFIED DRIVERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 May.

BLASPHEMY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

TAX RELIEF FOR HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill not printed.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

BLASPHEMY (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CONTROL OF AMUSEMENT ARCADES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL GOVERNING BODIES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

GREYHOUND BETTING LEVY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [16 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 20 April.

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, I should like to move the Second Reading.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is present.

Mr. Cohen: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the confusion; I was merely trying to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). So that we may know when the close season for hare coursing starts, is it in order for the hon. Member for

Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) to give us the information? Many hon. Members who support the Bill would like to talk to him about it——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

TERM AND QUARTER DAYS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was correct in saying that it was the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) who objected to my Bill. According to my recollection, it was the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham).

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If one voice has been raised in objection, the Chair must take that objection.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great deal of confusion among Conservative Members. The hon. Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick)——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may think that there is confusion in the House, but the important point is that there is no confusion in the Chair.

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

MARRIAGE (REGISTRATION OF BUILDINGS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.

RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES (BENEFITS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to decline to propose the question on this Bill, as it duplicates a new clause proposed to the Social Security Bill and rejected by the House.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the new clause proposed in the Social Security Bill—which is similar, but not identical to this Bill—was rejected by the House, surely this Bill is in order because it is a separate matter on which the House has not decided because it is not identical to that new clause.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In fact, there is a more significant matter, which is that the Bill has not been moved.

House of Commons Members' Fund

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1 April 1990, as follows:
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,916 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £5,364 per annum whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £5,619 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £8,067 per annum, whichever is the less:
(b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,464 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £3,913 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,808 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £5,256 per annum, whichever is the less:
(c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:
'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,464 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £3,913 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,808 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £5,256 per annum, whichever is the less:
(d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words:
'the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—

(a) £1,698 if the payments are made to a past Member; and
(b) £849 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.

I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House also to discuss the next motion on the Order Paper:
That the whole or any part of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and the whole or any part of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, be appropriated

for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 12 of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc. act 1984.
The motions have been tabled in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who share with me the responsibility, as trustees, of administering the House of Commons Members' Fund.
The purpose of the first resolution is to provide for an increase in the present levels of grants and payments that may be made under the Members' Fund legislation. Those were last revised in April 1989. The proposal now is that they should be increased from 1 April 1990 by about 7·6 per cent., in line with the increases approved for public service and state retirement pensions in February this year.
More than 50 years have elapsed since the first Members' Fund Act received the Royal Assent in 1939. During that time—it is important to put it on record that it was not until 1964 that Members of Parliament first became entitled to superannuation benefits as of right—many former Members and their surviving dependants in financially straitened circumstances have been fund beneficiaries. It is a matter of regret that the level of support which successive trustees of the fund have been able to provide for them, over the years, has been extremely modest.
As the House will know, a problem of particular concern to the trustees is that the whereabouts of our former colleagues or their widows or widowers is not always known to us. All hon. Members will have received a copy of a letter from Mr. Dobson, the fund's secretary, about this difficulty, and I am happy to say that there has already been a positive response to our request for help in identifying former colleagues, or their dependants, whose financial circumstances entitle them to assistance from the fund. We have so far received 20 responses, with eight possible new cases. Any further help we can be given by Members in finding possible new beneficiaries of the fund will be most welcome and much appreciated.
The provisions for which I now seek the approval of the House are set out in detail in the motion on the Order Paper, and they can be briefly summarised. Sub-pararaph 1(a) deals with the provision for grants to ex-Members. It is proposed to increase the basic annual grant to £2,916, subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £5,364. In the case of ex-Members with longer service and in need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £5,619, subject to an income limit of £8,067 per annum.
Sub-paragraphs 1(b) and (c) deal with the provision for grants to widows and widowers of ex-Members. It is proposed to increase the basic annual grant to £1,464, subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £3,913. Similarly, in the case of widows or widowers of ex-Members who had longer service, and where there is need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £2,808, subject to an income limit of £5,256.
As to as-of-right payments under the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, sub-paragraph (d) of the motion relates to ex-Members who gave 10 years' service before October 1964, and to the widows or widowers of such Members provided for by the 1981 Act. It is proposed to increase annual payments to —1,698 in the case of ex-Members and to £849 in the case of widows or widowers. The additional annual costs of those increases is estimated to amount to £6,960.


The second resolution relates to section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, which authorises the trustees of the Members' fund to make
such periodical or other payments as they think fit
to ex-Members, or the widows, widowers or children of ex-Members, for
the purpose of alleviating special hardship".
That section of the Act, together with section 1 of the 1957 Act as amended, provides that in any year, for the purpose of making such payments, the House of Commons may by resolution direct that the whole or any part of the amount contributed by Members, together with up to £22,000 of the Treaury's contribution in the year, be appropriated. The total that may be appropriated under that provision is £37,600.
At present, nine beneficiaries receive payments totalling £15,552 per annum under that section, and the moneys to be appropriated are needed both to continue those payments and to fund any further cases that may arise.
I commend the resolutions to the House, and in doing so I pay further tribute to Jim Dobson and Tony Lewis and to their colleagues in the Fees Office, whose humane concern for the Fund's often very elderly beneficiaries is admired by all of us who see at first hand their work in administering the Fund. They are deserving of the warmest appreciation of the whole House.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in congratulating the Fees Office. Anyone referring to the Fees Office finds that everyone there, from Mr. Dobson down, is willing to help in any way that they can. My right hon. Friend's motions are partly a consequence of the very hard work put in by Mr. Jim Dobson and his staff.

Question put and agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Resolved,
That the whole or any part of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and the whole or any part of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 12 of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc. Act 1984.

Orders of the Day — Infant Mortality (Neuroblastoma)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: When Professor Karol Sikora, the consultant oncologist and radiologist, launched the disturbing report "Caring for Cancer" last Friday, he attracted wide public attention for his statement that thousands of people die of preventable cancer in Britain today. As a cancer specialist, he spoke of British hospitals that are
more poorly equipped than many in the Third world
and strongly criticised "badly organised" services for cancer patients.
This debate is about children who suffer from cancer and the widespread belief that much more could he done not only to improve the health care that they receive but sharply to reduce deaths among them. At present, childhood cancers are the third biggest killers of children aged under 14 in this country.
Shortly before Christmas 1988, a normally happy and boisterous three-year-old was taken to his doctor by his mother, who thought that he looked slightly off-colour and that he had a passing infection from which, with the help of one antibiotic or another, he would soon recover and once again be his happy and normal self. When the family GP examined the child, he found a lump in his abdomen. Tests undertaken later showed it to be a neuroblastoma, which is one of the most dangerous forms of childhood cancer.
Within a week the toddler of whom I speak was fighting for his life. By last March, the happy December child was blind in one eye and looked like a victim of the Ethiopian famine. Despite 80 days of the most intensive form of chemotherapy given to children, and 26 treatments with radiotherapy from the latest linear accelerator, sadly the child died.
About one in 10,000 children are believed to be born with a neuroblastoma which, in 95 per cent. of cases, gives rise to symptoms before the age of five. While in some cases the condition goes into remission of its own accord, only 25 per cent. of British children with it survive; the others are diagnosed too late. Dr. Tom Stuttaford, a former Conservative Member of this House, writing in The Times has said:
The grief which parents have to suffer is not made arty lighter by the knowledge that 90 per cent. of these cancers could be detected at a stage when simple surgical treatment would give an 85 per cent. cure rate, but that the screening of babies which uncovers neuroblastomas is not carried out because of the cost.
Dr. Stuttaford went on to say that in Japan babies are screened for neuroblastoma, that treatment starts there with far higher prospects of success and that, if we screened here, many children's lives could be saved. Dr. Stuttaford, like everyone else, is concerned most about saving life and the relief of suffering, but he also looked at comparative costs. After comparing the current costs to the NHS of treating cases of neuroblastoma, most of which could be saved if simple surgery replaced the present high-tech treatment, he sought to show that screening also made good sense financially. In a subsequent letter to me, he spoke of the urgent need to press the case for screening. He went on:


The screening service has reduced mortality overseas in those areas which have a high incidence of neuroblastomas. There is no reason to suppose that British neuroblastomas would behave differently from foreign neuroblastomas.
Not only doctors, but also the bereaved families of children who have died from neuroblastoma say that there are far too many preventable deaths from this scourge. They believe, in the words of a letter I have had from one of the bereaved, that death from neuroblastoma is in mostcases now
a preventable tragedy of childhood".
To discover where the Secretary of State for Health stood on this vitally important matter—using the word "vitally" in its literal sense—I tabled parliamentary questions asking him, first, how many babies were born with neuroblastoma in each of the last five years for which figures were available, and also how many children died of the condition in the same period. The reply, on 27 November last, was a holding answer from the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, as follows:
I shall let the right hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.
Thus it seemed that no information was immediately available to Ministers and in fact the substantive reply to my question, again from the Under-Secretary of State, was not given until more than two weeks later, on 12 December, when I was told:
The latest available data on newly reported cases of childhood neuroblastoma cover the years 1971–80, and indicate that during that period 374 new cases were reported for males aged 0-14 years and 277 cases for females.
The reply concluded:
The number of deaths from neuroblastoma during this period, or for a later five-year period, could only be determined at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 12 December 1989; Vol. 163 c. 631.]
So the Department of Health's most up-to-date statistics on the incidence of neuroblastoma are 10 years old and the numbers of children who die, year by year, from this most dangerous form of cancer are unknown to the Government because Ministers think it too costly to collect them.
My concern about the reply of 12 December was widely shared and I sought, in a further parliamentary question, to find out exactly what the Minister's use of the term "disproportionate cost" meant and, in fact, just how much the Government would have to spend to establish the number of more recent child deaths from neuroblastoma.
The Under-Secretary of State's reply to my further question was as follows:
Approximately £1,600.
The reply went on:
National mortality statistics do not routinely identify neuroblastoma as a cause of death, and this figure represents the estimated staff cost of identifying and extracting this information from the death certificates of all children who have died from cancer.
The Government do not, therefore, know the number of child victims of neuroblastoma—and are now seen as not wanting to know—because they regard —1,600 as too high a price to pay for finding out. By any reckoning, that is a shaming and shocking admission. The reactions of the families and doctors of children affected were not too difficult to predict. Everyone I have discussed the reply with sees it as scandalous and I hope that the Minister will agree that his Department really must take immediate

steps fully to inform itself about both the incidence of neuroblastoma and the number of children who die from the condition.
My other parliamentary questions were about screening and the costs to the NHS of treatment in cases of childhood neuroblastoma. The Government are not persuaded that screening—the cost of which has been independently estimated to be £1·9 million—is justified. They claim to be keeping research and development in this field, at home and abroad, under regular review. As to costs, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), the Minister of State for Health, again revealing the Department's disturbing lack of definitive information—indeed, wilful ignorance—told me in a parliamentary answer on 27 November last:
Comprehensive information on the costs of treatment for this condition is not available, but it has been estimated that in one region these are about £45,000 per case."—[Official Report, 27 November 1989; Vol. 162, c.101.]
The grandfather of the three-year-old boy whose case I described earlier told me that he had never consciously heard the word "neuroblastoma" until his grandson was struck down by this condition. He wrote:
I was not aware that a simple screening could save perhaps over 90 per cent. of the children affected, at such little cost … Even when time has, to a little extent, faded the pain of seeing my grandson go through the horrors of such violent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, I still believe that funds must be granted. After all, what is £1·9 million, if it is going to save so many young lives, when we are prepared to spend not much less than that to protect badgers or natterjack toads to survive the motorcar?
What the child's grandfather did not know when he wrote to me was that, much apart from spending £1·9 million, the Government are refusing even to pay £1,600 to find out the number of victims of childhood neuroblastoma. I hesitate even to think how he and other bereaved relatives will react to that disclosure, of which they are likely to learn for the first time from this debate.
As for people more generally, at least they will need no further confirmation of the truth of Professor Karol Sikora's statement of deep concern last Friday about cancer care in this country. I believe that the general public will see it as being at once wrong headed and inhumane for the Government not to know all the facts about the incidence of neuroblastoma, the number of children who die from the condition and the comparative costs of present treatment and of screening.
The House may recall that I had the honour some years ago, after opening the debate on arrangements for the international year of disabled persons at the United Nations in New York, to chair the world planning group which drafted the charter for disabled people worldwide. The document was presented to heads of Governments all across the world and its aims and principles were received with approval by the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street.
The charter's first aim was to maximum the prevention of disability and killer diseases, not because reducing the cost of care is of high importance but because saving lives and preventing human distress is the highest of priorities. With a membership of specialists drawn from the north, south, east and west of the world, the committee that I chaired was unanimously clear that no other aim could ever take precedence over prevention. But prevention here in Britain is put at a discount if, due to hideously false economies, the Government are not aware of easily obtainable facts and when proposals, even for limited


screening—such as those put to the Medical Research Council by Dr. Alan Craft, a paediatric oncologist at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle-on-Tyne—are seen as scientifically acceptable but still await funding. All that he asks for is a proper and publicly-funded evaluation of the problem, which will cover, in the first place, the whole of Scotland and the northern, Yorkshire, north-west, Mersey and south-west regions of England.
I know that there is more than one view of the Japanese screening programme. It is argued that its design is flawed, that its efficacy is difficult to measure in that Japan has no national system for cancer death registration and that, given due funding, we could achieve scientifically better results here. But among senior specialists in Britian, in whose work we can take pride, I have found only one view of Dr. Craft's proposals, namely, that they are scientifically acceptable and merit urgent approval of the funds necessary to put them into effect. Indeed, his method of investigating is described in a letter that I have had from Dr. John Pritchard, consultant/senior lecturer in paediatric oncology at Great Ormond street, as "spot on".
This being an Adjournment debate, time is at a premium and I want the Minister to have ample opportunity to respond to the plea from families and doctors alike for more purposeful action by the Government to prevent every avoidable death from childhood neuroblastoma. Manifestly the Minister must very urgently now secure up-to-date information on the number of babies born with this condition. Just as clearly, he must accept that it is totally indefensible for the Government to refuse to find out how many children have died from neuroblastomas in the past 10 years and that it was gratuitously hurtful to the bereaved families to say, in his Parliamentary reply to me, that £1,600 is too much for the Department of Health to find for that information.
I ask the Minister also to publish, at a very early date, a report on his Department's "regular review"—to recall the reply to another of my Parliamentary Questions—of
research and development in this field at home and abroad"—[Official Report, 27 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 101.]
Why should the outcome of that work stay locked up in the Department of Health when it is work done at public expense and irrefutably of high public importance? How can Members of Parliament, the families of children with neuroblastomas or the doctors who work among them, judge the quality of work that is hidden away from them?
Most of all, there is a compelling case, which I hope the Minister will concede before we conclude this debate, for immediate public funding of the screening programme proposed by Dr. Alan Craft. In the view of bereaved families the need to press ahead with his proposals is not only compelling, but grievously overdue. The central truth here, of course, is that policy making itself is blind if policy makers are not in possession of all obtainable facts. Inexcusably, facts have been available which, for 10 years now, the Government refused to discover on the grounds of cost—minimal cost—and that must now be corrected.
The requests that I am making are not extravagant—nor are they only my requests. They are the very least that the families and doctors of children who have died from neuroblastoma want to see. As well as conceding them unequivocally today, the Minister should also agree to meet representatives of the families and of medical specialists in childhood neuroblastoma to hear their submissions at first hand.
I must warn the Government that the campaign for more official effort to reduce the death toll from childhood neuroblastoma will not go away. It will be vigorously pursued for as long as it takes to satisfy the families of children who have already died—and those of children who are dying now—that nothing which could possibly be done to prevent avoidable further deaths is being left undone.
Finally, I should like to thank Dr. Stuttaford for exciting public interest in the issues at stake, the families who gave me information to inform the parliamentary questions that I tabled, in particular, Colonel John Reid of Thirsk, the Neuroblastoma Society for all its humane work in this area, Professor Judith Chessels of the Institute of Child Health and Dr. Jon Pritchard for writing to me. Among many others, I thank the right hon. Lord Pyrn, a former Leader of the House of Commons who is now active in another place, both for the help that he gave me and for his obviously very genuine concern for the children and their families whose case I now commend to the House.

3 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is a tough and doughty debater. I greatly respect his position and experience. The House is grateful to him for raising this issue so lucidly. He was a much respected predecessor in my post. Some 16 years ago, he started in my lowly position and then rose to more senior positions in the Government.
I agree that the affliction of neuroblastoma is appalling. It is a childhood cancer. We do not know its causes, but we certainly know the consequences. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of a three-year-old, I thought of my three-year-old daughter, who is fortunately in good health, and I can imagine the appalling tragedy and consequences for the family, let alone the suffering of the poor child. I sympathise with his arguments to draw the attention of the House and the Government to the disease.
I shall give the right hon. Gentleman three assurances. First, during the debate he said that the Department had been unable to answer the detailed question about the number of deaths by following normal governmental procedure. This is the first chance I have had to reflect on that, and no gratuitous offence was intended. I am persuaded by his arguments and I shall instruct officials at the Department of Health to find the figures by searching through the death certificates of children who have died from cancer and to ascertain the most current information about those who have suffered from the disease. That will be at exceptional cost, but the right hon. Gentleman's arguments merit exceptional treatment. I hope that he will accept that assurance in the spirit in which it is offered. I shall be in touch with him about how we can inform the House.
Secondly, the application for research to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is being examined by the Medical Research Council. The case still needs to be argued on its merits and I do not believe that justification is as simple as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I assure him that the application will be properly studied on its merits and will be considered in competition with other


elements of vital research. Thirdly, I am happy to meet him and representatives of parents whose children have suffered. That is the least I can do.
Some parents feel strongly that a mass screening programme is the answer. The aim would be to detect the disease at an early stage,—for example six months, when treatment offers the best hope of success. In fairness to them and their children, we must be reasonably certain that such a programme wouldbe soundly and scientifically based and above all, that it would save lives.
To establish the effectiveness of screening would require either research, or comparison with the experience of other countries, or both. I understand that the Medical Research Council has received an application for the funding of a large-scale trial of a technique based on testing the urine of babies at about six months of age. It is considering, in consultation with my Department, what support may be available from public funds.
I cannot tell the House today what the outcome may be. It is a detailed, complex and costly proposal, which must be examined on its merits and in relation to many other vital research priorities. I can, however, assure the House that the concerns expressed are well understood and will be taken into account in that process. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue and causing attention to be focused on it. In the remaining time I believe that it would be helpful if I set out the background against which a decision must be reached.
First, we must consider the scale of the problem. It is, of course, immense for every individual affected, but the likelihood of it happening is extremely slight. The recent average for the number of children diagnosed with neuroblastoma in Great Britain is 73 a year. That is approximately one for every 10,000 live births and represents 5·7 per cent. of all cases of childhood cancer. From 1979 to 1988 an average of 44 children a year have died from the disease, or about one for every 16,000 live births. Twenty-four per cent. of children are diagnosed at under one year of age and 75 per cent. at under five years. Where children are picked up with the disease at under a year old, or with the disease in its early stages, they have a good chance of survival. The outlook, however, is poorer for those aged more than one year or with more advanced disease. Even so, the latest available figure for annual deaths from neuroblastoma is about 40 per cent. less than what it averaged from 1953 to 1975.
As we understand it, the situation is getting a little better. Moreover, the proportion of children who are surviving for five years after diagnosis has steadily increased from 15 per cent. for those diagnosed in 1971 to 1973 to 43 per cent. for those diagnosed in 1983 to 1985. That strongly suggests that, overall, treatment is becoming more effective.
Since the 1970s there has been a tendency to concentrate expertise in the treatment of childhood cancers in specialist centres and there is come evidence that that, in itself, has an impact on survival and quality of life. At the same time it must be noted that the long-term side-effects of aggressive treatment in childhood—chemotherapy—may take 15 to 20 years to show up. The potential benefit of early detection and gentler treatment, which is less likely to have such side-effects, must be acknowledged. A difficult judgment must be reached on

whether the reduction in mortality and morbidity expected from screening is likely to be significantly greater than that produced by continuing improvements in treatment.
Secondly, evidence from abroad, notably Japan, must be weighted. The Japanese authorities introduced a national screening programme in 1985, based on the experience of two regional schemes which were already running. It is too soon to assess the impact of the national programme, but evidence from the regional schemes has not so far demonstrated a reduction in mortality as a result of screening. Nor is there as yet any evidence of a reduction in the number of children first diagnosed after one year of age and with advanced disease—that is, those at greatest risk, for whom early detection should offer the most benefit. So no evidence has yet been produced that the Japanese are catching the disease earlier, perhaps because screening at an early fixed time misses those who suffer affliction later. On the other hand, a research trial proposed for this country would require a period of five or six years to run, and a similar period to follow up all the babies screened. So, another judgment must be reached, on whether conclusive results are likely to become available from Japan, or elsewhere, more quickly than from the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, as with other screening schemes, there are potential pitfalls and uncertainties that must be addressed. For instance, at certain stages of its development, which may be early or late, neuroblastoma can clear up spontaneously. There is evidence that the number of such cases may be up to 40 times greater than the number of cases diagnosed in the normal way, when a child comes to a doctor with symptoms. As a result of autopsies or post mortems we believe that cases can go undetected, which are clearly malignant. Screening will detect cases that would not otherwise have come to light, and that means that children could be subjected to unnecessary investigation and treatment. That could result in distress for them and uncertainty for their families, and it would not have the slightest effect on the toll of mortality from this disease. Where, on the other hand, screening detects advanced disease, there is no reason to suppose that treatment would be any more successful than if the child had been diagnosed in the normal way and had presented for treatment. Again, there would be no effect on mortality.
Even more crucial, perhaps, is the question of misleading results—false positives and false negatives. If a child is screened positively as having neuroblastoma and turns out not to have it, the potential for distress and uncertainty for him and his family is clear. If a child is screened as free of the disease and subsequently turns out to have it, that potential is tragically magnified. Those are not hypothetical examples. There is some evidence to suggest that children will develop neuroblastoma at the age of one year or more, which could not have been detected by a urine test at six months.
A small-scale pilot screening service in Tyneside has already successfully identified two cases of neuroblastoma from a population of just over 22,000 babies, but it has also produced both false positives and false negatives. A judgment has therefore also to be reached on the extent to which a large-scale trial is likely to replicate those results—and to pick up the cases that would have cleared up spontaneously—and whether national screening is an


acceptable price to pay for detecting those cases, which will in fact become lethal at a stage when they are more likely to respond to treatment.
Fourthly, a judgment must be reached on the understandable pressures that the proposed research will create. I gather that the test used has so far proved simple to administer and acceptable to parents and health professionals. If the test proved effective in reducing mortality, the potential gain in terms of high-quality years of life saved could be enormous. It is precisely to establish conclusively what difference screening makes that a major trial has been proposed. Because the disease is comparatively rare, this would need to involve the monitoring and follow-up of very large groups of infants, both screened and unscreened, over a number of years.
During that period, there would be pressure to extend screening to all babies, whether or not it eventually proved

to be of measurable value. That would be entirely understandable—the test offers hope—but it would flaw the scientific basis of the trial. It would be quite wrong to create the expectation that an untested procedure will be made universally available as a routine service.
Any prospect of reducing the toll of suffering and death from childhood cancer deserves the most serious consideration. That consideration is now in hand in relation to neuroblastoma. I emphasise that a decision has yet to be made and that the factors that I have mentioned and the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman will play an important part in reaching it. I hope that he will welcome my assurances and pass them on to those whom he represents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Three o'clock.